Without doubt, one of the most talked about issues in nutrition is the added sugar in our diets, be through processed foods or added after-the-fact. High fructose corn syrup and artificial sweeteners are, in particular, at the front of this debate, vilified as Public Enemy Number 1... and 2, respectively. Both have been blamed for the rise in obesity, autism, allergies, diabetes and cancer, but is this really fair? In recent "pop-nutrition" it has become popular to support the "natural" sweeteners, be it honey, sucrose (table sugar) or the non-caloric sweetener stevia. Are these truly beneficial to health when compared to high fructose corn syrup and artificial sweeteners, or are they sweet little half-truths?
A commonly committed fallacy is to associate two potentially linked items with a cause and effect relationship. The easiest phrase to remember when applying scrutiny to such claims is that "correlation does not imply causation". Take, for example, the use of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) in the United States with the rise in obesity. It seems at first to be a compelling argument when you assume these two ideas exist in a vacuum with one another. High fructose corn syrup is added to more and more products as a flavor enhancer and preservative, and obesity rises along a similar trend. This isn't necessarily a wholly accurate claim. It may be true that high fructose corn syrup, or really any other caloric sweetener, have been increasingly added to our processed foods but that isn't the only factor that can contribute to the rise in obesity. A myriad other factors, such as the increased consumption of processed foods, the decreased production of scratch-cooked dinners, and the increasingly sedentary nature of our culture are all factors that contribute to the rise in obesity.
Sucrose, the sweetener by which all others are compared (rating 1.0 on the scale of "sweetness") is a disaccharide (two-sugar) compound comprised of glucose and fructose in equal balance. High fructose corn syrup is a synthetic sugar comprised of glucose and fructose in near equal balance; fructose is slightly more prevalent in the disaccharide than glucose which results in a slightly sweeter flavor when compared to sucrose. When digested, both sucrose and high fructose corn syrup are broken down via enzyme action into their monosaccharide components. In other words, the two are treated in exactly the same way as far as the body is concerned. When this is considered, it is easy to understand that simply consuming foods with "all natural cane sugar" is no better for you than consuming a product with high fructose corn syrup. The issue is that too much consumption of anything-- and I emphasize anything-- is generally not a good thing. An overall reduction in any kind of sugar consumption would do far more to benefit our health than quibbling over which type of sugar we should use. Treat it as a treat, and don't feel guilty about it.
A commonly committed fallacy is to associate two potentially linked items with a cause and effect relationship. The easiest phrase to remember when applying scrutiny to such claims is that "correlation does not imply causation". Take, for example, the use of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) in the United States with the rise in obesity. It seems at first to be a compelling argument when you assume these two ideas exist in a vacuum with one another. High fructose corn syrup is added to more and more products as a flavor enhancer and preservative, and obesity rises along a similar trend. This isn't necessarily a wholly accurate claim. It may be true that high fructose corn syrup, or really any other caloric sweetener, have been increasingly added to our processed foods but that isn't the only factor that can contribute to the rise in obesity. A myriad other factors, such as the increased consumption of processed foods, the decreased production of scratch-cooked dinners, and the increasingly sedentary nature of our culture are all factors that contribute to the rise in obesity.
Sucrose, the sweetener by which all others are compared (rating 1.0 on the scale of "sweetness") is a disaccharide (two-sugar) compound comprised of glucose and fructose in equal balance. High fructose corn syrup is a synthetic sugar comprised of glucose and fructose in near equal balance; fructose is slightly more prevalent in the disaccharide than glucose which results in a slightly sweeter flavor when compared to sucrose. When digested, both sucrose and high fructose corn syrup are broken down via enzyme action into their monosaccharide components. In other words, the two are treated in exactly the same way as far as the body is concerned. When this is considered, it is easy to understand that simply consuming foods with "all natural cane sugar" is no better for you than consuming a product with high fructose corn syrup. The issue is that too much consumption of anything-- and I emphasize anything-- is generally not a good thing. An overall reduction in any kind of sugar consumption would do far more to benefit our health than quibbling over which type of sugar we should use. Treat it as a treat, and don't feel guilty about it.
I mentioned above that the relative sweetness of sucrose is 1.0, and is the baseline by which all other sweeteners, natural or artificial, are compared. Undoubtedly many of these are things you have never heard of and indeed many of them you will likely never consume.
Note the sugars ending in -ol (you are most likely to have encountered sorbitol or xylitol). These are sugar alcohols; non-caloric sweeteners often used in gums and cough drops.
Near the center you will see "stevioside". This is also called stevia, which is known commonly under its market brand Truvia. It is a natural non-caloric sweetener derived from the leaves of the stevia plant, and is 100 times sweeter than sucrose, which means simply that to achieve the same sweet flavor you would get from table sugar you would use a fraction of that amount of stevia. It is still a rather new form of sweetener but has grown rapidly in popularity under the wings of the natural foods movement. Currently there are brands of soda that are sweetened by stevia, but they are relatively uncommon and expensive, though the Coke is developing a new product sweetened with stevia, dubbed Coca-Cola Life.
What about our common non-nutritive artificial sweeteners? Undoubtedly the one people are most familiar with is aspartame. To call aspartame non-nutritive is something of a misnomer, in fact aspartame has the same caloric content as sucrose; 4 kcal per gram. However, with a relative sweetness of 200, meaning it is 200 times sweeter than sucrose and twice as sweet as stevia), there is literally such minute amounts of the sweetener present in any product that it is essentially non-caloric. Most commonly used in diet-soft drinks, aspartame and its other artificial brethren have been under extraordinarily tight scrutiny by the nutritional science community since their advent because of the high demand for a safe, non-caloric sweetener. Time and time again, studies are released showing that risk claims stemming from artificial sweeteners are faulty, and that these products are, in their proper dosages, harmless.
The basic principle of toxicology, first said by Paracelsus, is "the dose makes the poison." In other words, there are many substances we consume or use on a near daily basis, many of which in the right amount could be horribly harmful to our health. So why is it aspartame is so scary to most people? Well, for one thing many people do not realize just how little aspartame is present in a soft-drink and also do not give their digestive system credit where credit is due.
Aspartame is made up of three compounds; phenylalanine and aspartic acid (amino acids) and the alcohol methanol. I will point this out now: if you or someone you know suffers from PKU (phenylketonuria), aspartame is dangerous to consume. If not, the two amino acids present in aspartame do not pose much of a threat to an otherwise normal individual.
The alcohol, methanol, is broken into formaldehyde and formic acid when digested. Both of these compounds are, simply put, harmful in the body but again are present in such small amounts as a result of the aspartame that the body has more than enough capability and time to use that all around good-guy and unsung hero of the body, the liver, to flush out any unwanted toxins. It may surprise you that methanol, the true bad boy behind so many "studies" demonizing aspartame, is present in greater quantities in many natural foods, such as tomatoes, oranges as well as fermented beverages.
When I took Biochemistry our instructor did a neat little experiment illustrating the safety of aspartame as it relates to methanol production. Ultimately the illustration explained that in order to reach toxic levels of methanol in an adult system one would have to consume somewhere around forty liters of soda in one gulp. He followed this up with the point that if you could possibly do that, you had bigger concerns than the methanol to consider.
I am not advocating well all switch to diet sodas or eat sugar to our hearts content. Rather, I am advocating that we recognize the truth in the foods we eat, and understand that a little of something on occasion is extremely unlikely to do you any harm barring extenuating circumstances. Don't feel like you need to explain away why you are eating a cupcake, don't feel the need to defend your consumption of a Diet Pepsi. These foods are safe, "the dose makes the poison." You only live one life, don't deny yourself a treat now and then!
Please, enjoy life, enjoy love, enjoy food!
Eat fearlessly.
Note the sugars ending in -ol (you are most likely to have encountered sorbitol or xylitol). These are sugar alcohols; non-caloric sweeteners often used in gums and cough drops.
Near the center you will see "stevioside". This is also called stevia, which is known commonly under its market brand Truvia. It is a natural non-caloric sweetener derived from the leaves of the stevia plant, and is 100 times sweeter than sucrose, which means simply that to achieve the same sweet flavor you would get from table sugar you would use a fraction of that amount of stevia. It is still a rather new form of sweetener but has grown rapidly in popularity under the wings of the natural foods movement. Currently there are brands of soda that are sweetened by stevia, but they are relatively uncommon and expensive, though the Coke is developing a new product sweetened with stevia, dubbed Coca-Cola Life.
What about our common non-nutritive artificial sweeteners? Undoubtedly the one people are most familiar with is aspartame. To call aspartame non-nutritive is something of a misnomer, in fact aspartame has the same caloric content as sucrose; 4 kcal per gram. However, with a relative sweetness of 200, meaning it is 200 times sweeter than sucrose and twice as sweet as stevia), there is literally such minute amounts of the sweetener present in any product that it is essentially non-caloric. Most commonly used in diet-soft drinks, aspartame and its other artificial brethren have been under extraordinarily tight scrutiny by the nutritional science community since their advent because of the high demand for a safe, non-caloric sweetener. Time and time again, studies are released showing that risk claims stemming from artificial sweeteners are faulty, and that these products are, in their proper dosages, harmless.
The basic principle of toxicology, first said by Paracelsus, is "the dose makes the poison." In other words, there are many substances we consume or use on a near daily basis, many of which in the right amount could be horribly harmful to our health. So why is it aspartame is so scary to most people? Well, for one thing many people do not realize just how little aspartame is present in a soft-drink and also do not give their digestive system credit where credit is due.
Aspartame is made up of three compounds; phenylalanine and aspartic acid (amino acids) and the alcohol methanol. I will point this out now: if you or someone you know suffers from PKU (phenylketonuria), aspartame is dangerous to consume. If not, the two amino acids present in aspartame do not pose much of a threat to an otherwise normal individual.
The alcohol, methanol, is broken into formaldehyde and formic acid when digested. Both of these compounds are, simply put, harmful in the body but again are present in such small amounts as a result of the aspartame that the body has more than enough capability and time to use that all around good-guy and unsung hero of the body, the liver, to flush out any unwanted toxins. It may surprise you that methanol, the true bad boy behind so many "studies" demonizing aspartame, is present in greater quantities in many natural foods, such as tomatoes, oranges as well as fermented beverages.
When I took Biochemistry our instructor did a neat little experiment illustrating the safety of aspartame as it relates to methanol production. Ultimately the illustration explained that in order to reach toxic levels of methanol in an adult system one would have to consume somewhere around forty liters of soda in one gulp. He followed this up with the point that if you could possibly do that, you had bigger concerns than the methanol to consider.
I am not advocating well all switch to diet sodas or eat sugar to our hearts content. Rather, I am advocating that we recognize the truth in the foods we eat, and understand that a little of something on occasion is extremely unlikely to do you any harm barring extenuating circumstances. Don't feel like you need to explain away why you are eating a cupcake, don't feel the need to defend your consumption of a Diet Pepsi. These foods are safe, "the dose makes the poison." You only live one life, don't deny yourself a treat now and then!
Please, enjoy life, enjoy love, enjoy food!
Eat fearlessly.