Are sugar substitutes healthier than the real thing?

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 they exist.

There was a tagatose-based sweetener available called "tagatesse" which was unbelievably good, but it was withdrawn from the market about a decade ago. It resurfaced some time ago, but they changed the formula and it now contains a lot of sucralose...

Anyway, to the point, there's lots of evidence to suggest that tagatose and psicose are actively healthy. They inhibit alpha-glucosidase, stimulate the release of GLP-1, boost glycogen storage in the liver, and are highly fermentable by beneficial gut bacteria. Definitely healthier than sugar.

Tangential, are there any sweeteners which are confirmed to not affect intermittent fasting? Would love to sweeten my black coffee.

Two things can be true at the same time. Sugar substitutes can be bad for you and still be less bad for you than the equivalent sugar.

It's been shown over and over again that sugar consumption significantly increases obesity, metabolic syndrome, cancer, strokes, cardiovascular disease, chronic inflammation, high blood pressure, bad cholesterol, and probably more things that I'm forgetting. Natural sugar advocates absolutely love to ignore and forget this.

Anything talking about the harms of sugar substitutes needs to always be in relation to the harm definitively known to be caused by equivalent sugar intake. This article does not do that. It only pretends to in a very misleading way.

> In some randomised controlled trials (typically lasting 4-12 weeks) substituting other sweeteners for sugars did admittedly result in lower weight gain. But a number of large, long-term observational studies have found the opposite: people with higher consumption of sugar substitutes—some of whom may be using these to replace sugar in their diets—end up putting on more weight than those who consume the least.

These two statements are orthogonal to each other but they're misleadingly positioned to trick you into thinking otherwise.

Claim A: People who consume sugar substitutes instead of sugar gained less weight than the people who consumed equivalent sugar.

Claim B: People who consume more sugar substitutes in general, with zero relation to equivalent sugar replacement, had more problems than people who consumed less sugar substitutes. But this says absolutely nothing about what health problems would occur if those people had instead consumed sugar equivalent to the greater sugar substitute intake.

People who consume more sugar also experience more health problems than people who consume less sugar. The question is whether consuming sugar substitutes is worse than consuming the equivalent sugar, not whether consuming sugar substitutes is worse than consuming no sweetener at all.

Not to mention the problem of lumping all sugar substitutes together as though biochemistry is a function of flavor perception.

All ingredients should be regulated for public health and safety. That means sugar too, but where are all the articles titled "Are sugars healthier than the substitutes? We share some bitter truths"? Eh? Eh?

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 article will address that critical piece of info?

"a number of large, long-term observational studies have found the opposite: people with higher consumption of sugar substitutes—some of whom may be using these to replace sugar in their diets—end up putting on more weight than those who consume the least."

Nope. There's barely even an article there, and it just makes a giant sweeping generalization. They might as well have written an article about how food is bad for humans, because they studied several kinds of food (including poisonous mushrooms) and some people got sick.

Bitter truths: https://archive.is/Oti1j

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 here.

I lost 100lbs coming from close to morbid obesity. Diet soda is the single vice I refuse to give up for mental health reasons. Of all the vices (eating, drinking, substances, etc.) I had before, this seems like the least concerning. Some people don't need that mental blowoff valve, but if I'm going to maintain the rest of my healthy habits I've found I require such a thing.

This slop is what passes for journalism nowadays?

Emphatically, no. These are industrial experiments, in a similar vein to various Canola oils but much worse.

You probably heard of aspartame but there are worse things. A chemical byproduct of sucralose known as sucralose-6-acetate has been identified as highly genotoxic, meaning it breaks down DNA and may increase cancer risks. Found in common sucralose-based sweeteners, it causes a "leaky gut" by damaging intestinal walls and poses serious health risks, even at low, allowed consumption levels.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/a-chemical-found-i...

Heart Attacks (Erythritol): The sweetener erythritol, common in "keto-friendly" drinks, has been linked to increased blood clotting, potentially doubling the risk of heart attack or stroke.

https://www.aarp.org/health/conditions-treatments/are-artifi...

However, high levels of fructose have been engineered in many formerly natural foods, which is also dangerous (though far less so).

https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/13ecikd/til_...

Sugar-free drinks are increasingly linked to serious health risks, with studies suggesting they are not harmless alternatives. Key concerns include a 20% higher risk of AFib (irregular heartbeat), increased stroke and cardiovascular disease risks, and potential links to type 2 diabetes. They may also trigger digestive issues, gut microbiome disruption, and tooth decay.

The artificial sweeteners may not even do the very thing people choose them for. Contrary to their purpose, some studies show artificial sweeteners may raise type 2 diabetes risk by up to 38%. Other Potential Dangers: Research has linked consumption to metabolic syndrome, kidney disease, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, and potential gut bacteria disruption. Dental Damage: Acidic components can cause enamel erosion despite the absence of sugar.

Xylitol and Stevia may be exceptions, but they are also more naturally occurring. People sometimes try to use xylitol gum to stave off caries bacteria, but frankly, a diet rich in animal fats (butter etc) can do a lot more for teeth and bones.

This topic is the perpetual motion machine of journalism: every few months I see an article about how artificial sweeteners are bad and then another article that states the opposite.

Makes me want to make sure my body is donated to science as a data point to help settle this.