Every now and then there is an alarmist article about aspartame, and every time it's hard to tell whether moderate drinking of soft drinks is better when it had regular sugar vs when it has aspartame - can any person more familiar comment on this with regarding to current article?
The funny thing about this question is that it doesn’t really matter, unless it does: Sugar harms your health in a whole host of well documented ways, but a little of it, infrequently, is fine. Aspartame has always been under a cloud of doubt, but is probably also just fine in small amounts.
So really, you only need to be thinking about this if you’re having either of them as a regular part of your diet. And if that’s the case, well, this is the part where you really should listen to all those people who recommend that you acquire a taste for water.
> Aspartame has always been under a cloud of doubt
But this is almost entirely due to alarmists who were never using good science to justify their perspectives (just like with MSG). The reality is that aspartame is one of the most studied substances in history and it's effect on humans is very clear.
My main question is, if I drink ~3 glasses of soft drinks per day, should I get the one with sugar or the one with aspartame. Currently, I get the one with aspartame with thinking that (1) given the amount of sugar in this amount, I'd be running 100% full of my daily sugar norm, and (2) there are no conclusive evidence of aspartame being actually bad. Would the sugary drink be a better choice?
Another thing that irks me (though less so), is that occasionally somebody says for an aspartame drink that "you're drinking that poison?", when clearly, we would know if it really were poison.
Gil Carvalho (Nutrition Made Simple) is a good source for these types of questions. His existing videos may not address a brand new study, but he will give you a basis for assessing the new study in the context of what is already known.
a good rule of thumb is to not make significant changes based on single studies - especially on mice, ESPECIALLY in regards to controversial subjects. Robust science is not built on single studies.
I would really like a low sugar soft drink, not artificial but one with like 1/4 the amount of real sugar. It would probably taste fine, I don't get why everything needs 32g in it!
So it sounds like:
1. consuming aspartame triggers insulin release (unclear if this is novel information)
2. insulin release triggers inflammation that leads to atherosclerosis (they go into further detail on the mechanism here, which appears to be novel info)
It really doesn't seem to me like the artificial sweeteners should be the critical aspect of this finding, as this affects anything that triggers insulin release. Is there any data linking sulfonylureas with atherosclerosis? Based on this finding, one might expect that to be a consequence of their insulin releasing effect.
I didn’t read the entire article and i am not a physician.
That said, your point #2 sounds incorrect - aspartame doesn’t cause atherosclerosis, it aggravates atherosclerosis. The key difference there as it relates to type 2 diabetes patients is that presumably if they had atherosclerosis as an existing condition, they would qualify for a glp-1 with cvd benefits, and not be on sulfonylureas in the first place.
> Here, we show that consumption of 0.15% aspartame (APM) markedly increased insulin
Most food will "markedly increase insulin", and sugary food / drinks even more so.
Obviously people should try to eat healthy and ideally avoid artificial sweeteners, but in reality people are not machines and they're not going to drink water and eat lean meat and veg every day just because that's what's best for them.
It seems to me that for most people who like to occasionally consume soft drinks that switching to a comparable artificially sweetened alternative is going to be better for you even if there are still risks.
A study titled "eating cake aggravates atherosclerosis through insulin-triggered inflammation" isn't reason to never eat cake. It's just reason to be sensible and consume in moderation.
People have been consuming artificially flavoured foods and drinks daily for decades at this point. While these things are interesting to know and consider, no one should be concerned about this unless you're consuming an excessive amount of Aspartame. And even then it's almost certainly better for you to do that than consume excessive amounts of sugar.
I know that they've gone back and forth on artificial sweeteners over the years, but honestly, one of the best things I've done recently is switch over to seltzer water. Triggers all of the chemical receptors in the brain by repeating the "ritual" of drinking canned pop, but it's just water, so it's actually good for you. Also half the cost.
I've found seltzer makes me sleepy or fatigued for some reason. Everyone I tell this to looks at me like I'm nuts but I swear it's real. I think it has something to do with the brain's expectation of calories and the subsequent lack.
I get sleepy if I have too many vitamins/minerals (eg: a whole PowerBar or entire Orgain drink), so maybe it's the minerals, perhaps Magnesium?
[Magnesium helps my wife sleep better, but she can only take it at night or it makes her sleepy. I take half in the morning, and I think it helps because we're likely not getting enough in our mineral-depleted foods.]
I can imagine that. If I drink a lot of diet soda, I get a bit wired but also tired in a weird way. It's like my body expects some sugar to fuel the caffeine's stimulation.
>People with little saliva and a habit of frequently consuming acidic beverages are at increased risk for enamel erosion. The basic recommendations are to drink water as the first choice and eat fresh fruits as an integral part of a healthy and balanced diet.
>Health professionals should motivate the population to change their behavior regarding the consumption of acidic drinks, and recommendations should be made at the policy level to discourage the consumption of sugary drinks. Interventions that would improve oral health and overall health are widely available.
Normal sodas are pretty acidic - coke has a pH of around 2.5
Soda water has a pH of 5-6.
Your saliva has a pH of around 6-7.
Water, of course, is at 7.
Remember we're dealing a log scale here, and that going from 2.5 to 5.5 isn't a 2x improvement - it's closer to a 1000x reduction in the amount of acid. If replacing soda with soda water is what gets them to stick to it, that's what they should do.
I switched from sparkling to plain water a few weeks ago (for other reasons).
I’m drinking significantly less than I was when drinking sparkling.
So again, the question now becomes is it better to be fully hydrated drinking “acidic” sparkling water, or is it better to only drink plain water and be dehydrated? (Rhetorical question)
>The increased amounts of calcium, phosphate, and fluoride in the drinks limited the severity of erosion by changing the solubility of the enamel [82]. The decline in enamel’s surface microhardness and mineral loss were both dramatically halted by the addition of CaGP to the carbonated drinks.
Most seltzer water has fluoride in it, and your tap water has fluoride in it (if you're making your own at home).
Also the methodology in this study was purely in vitro, not real world conditions. Notably, the lack of saliva.
>Under normal circumstances, human saliva forms a physical barrier, a film, and prevents direct contact between the tooth enamel surface and acidic beverages, thus protecting teeth from erosive attack by acids [45,84,85,86]. However, the erosion tests were carried out without saliva
Also, seems like the study was more on soft drinks in particular and not "other acidic drinks" which may include seltzer water.
>Soft drink consumption during meals was linked to mild to severe tooth damage [65]. No matter when they were consumed, other acidic meals and beverages were not linked to tooth damage [40].
Anyway, net is this: I'm not saying sparkling water carries absolutely no risk, but linking a study like this and cherry picking quotes to make it sound like sparkling water is going to destroy your teeth is misleading.
If drinking sparkling water helps you kick your soda habit, please definitely make the switch. It's so much better for you. The increased risk from drinking sparkling water compared to still water is not worth worrying about if sparkling water provides a quality of life increase for you.
Everything in healthcare is about moderated risk and counterbalancing it against lifestyle.
To arrive in the bladder, the CO₂ would have to be absorbed into the blood stream first. Which it isn't, it is just burped out from your stomach. Also, CO₂ which is dissolved into the blood stream is removed through your lungs, and the blood CO₂ level is very tightly controlled by various regulators and reflexes. You would know instantly through your suffocation response that your blood CO₂ is elevated.
> because sugar is unequivocally, very very bad for you.
So all fruit is bad for you? Lactose is unequivocally bad? Even for nursing infants? How deep does "unequivocally" go exactly?
I hope you really just mean "added sugar in soda-tier quantities" when you say sugar is "unequivocally, very very bad". But I think this kind of hyperbole is part of why food science has got an awful reputation. Even the most 'enlightened' sources (and there are plenty of competing enlightened sources right now) seem unable to stop the totalizing language.
One refrain seems to be that "added sugars" are bad but then that's not quite true afaik either, because sugar is sugar whether it's "added" or not.
To a first approximation, "sugar is bad for you" seems to be a succinct lie-to-children[1] default, from where exceptions can be established. Whole fruits with lots of sugars (as opposed to e.g fruit juices with a comparable amount) are purportedly less-bad because they're accompanied by enough fiber to slow digestion and make the sugar less bioavailable.
Doesn't aspartame partly break down into methyl alcohol if it gets too hot?
I regularly drank Diet Cokes 25 years ago, and remember some batches would be "worse" than others.
And, whether from cans or plasic bottles, you're either also getting the can's lining or the plastic from the container mixed into the soda, right? I mean, it's an acidic liquid, so there is bound to be some dissolution of the lining into the fluid, by my understanding, with the more the warmer the temp.
And I do wonder what temp the bottling takes place at.
How well established is it that aspartame produces an insulin response? For me that’s the shocker. I don’t consume any but I’ve always suspected this. It suggests that many diet sodas, sugar free gums, and sugar free foods can contribute to insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes.
Readit News
So really, you only need to be thinking about this if you’re having either of them as a regular part of your diet. And if that’s the case, well, this is the part where you really should listen to all those people who recommend that you acquire a taste for water.
But this is almost entirely due to alarmists who were never using good science to justify their perspectives (just like with MSG). The reality is that aspartame is one of the most studied substances in history and it's effect on humans is very clear.
Another thing that irks me (though less so), is that occasionally somebody says for an aspartame drink that "you're drinking that poison?", when clearly, we would know if it really were poison.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdKAPzsxr_Yhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5h5IABzlj8w
Problem is, those low sugar beverages are often low sugar thanks to aspartame
It really doesn't seem to me like the artificial sweeteners should be the critical aspect of this finding, as this affects anything that triggers insulin release. Is there any data linking sulfonylureas with atherosclerosis? Based on this finding, one might expect that to be a consequence of their insulin releasing effect.
That said, your point #2 sounds incorrect - aspartame doesn’t cause atherosclerosis, it aggravates atherosclerosis. The key difference there as it relates to type 2 diabetes patients is that presumably if they had atherosclerosis as an existing condition, they would qualify for a glp-1 with cvd benefits, and not be on sulfonylureas in the first place.
Most food will "markedly increase insulin", and sugary food / drinks even more so.
Obviously people should try to eat healthy and ideally avoid artificial sweeteners, but in reality people are not machines and they're not going to drink water and eat lean meat and veg every day just because that's what's best for them.
It seems to me that for most people who like to occasionally consume soft drinks that switching to a comparable artificially sweetened alternative is going to be better for you even if there are still risks.
A study titled "eating cake aggravates atherosclerosis through insulin-triggered inflammation" isn't reason to never eat cake. It's just reason to be sensible and consume in moderation.
People have been consuming artificially flavoured foods and drinks daily for decades at this point. While these things are interesting to know and consider, no one should be concerned about this unless you're consuming an excessive amount of Aspartame. And even then it's almost certainly better for you to do that than consume excessive amounts of sugar.
[Magnesium helps my wife sleep better, but she can only take it at night or it makes her sleepy. I take half in the morning, and I think it helps because we're likely not getting enough in our mineral-depleted foods.]
>People with little saliva and a habit of frequently consuming acidic beverages are at increased risk for enamel erosion. The basic recommendations are to drink water as the first choice and eat fresh fruits as an integral part of a healthy and balanced diet.
>Health professionals should motivate the population to change their behavior regarding the consumption of acidic drinks, and recommendations should be made at the policy level to discourage the consumption of sugary drinks. Interventions that would improve oral health and overall health are widely available.
Normal sodas are pretty acidic - coke has a pH of around 2.5
Soda water has a pH of 5-6.
Your saliva has a pH of around 6-7.
Water, of course, is at 7.
Remember we're dealing a log scale here, and that going from 2.5 to 5.5 isn't a 2x improvement - it's closer to a 1000x reduction in the amount of acid. If replacing soda with soda water is what gets them to stick to it, that's what they should do.
I’m drinking significantly less than I was when drinking sparkling.
So again, the question now becomes is it better to be fully hydrated drinking “acidic” sparkling water, or is it better to only drink plain water and be dehydrated? (Rhetorical question)
>The increased amounts of calcium, phosphate, and fluoride in the drinks limited the severity of erosion by changing the solubility of the enamel [82]. The decline in enamel’s surface microhardness and mineral loss were both dramatically halted by the addition of CaGP to the carbonated drinks.
Most seltzer water has fluoride in it, and your tap water has fluoride in it (if you're making your own at home).
Also the methodology in this study was purely in vitro, not real world conditions. Notably, the lack of saliva.
>Under normal circumstances, human saliva forms a physical barrier, a film, and prevents direct contact between the tooth enamel surface and acidic beverages, thus protecting teeth from erosive attack by acids [45,84,85,86]. However, the erosion tests were carried out without saliva
Also, seems like the study was more on soft drinks in particular and not "other acidic drinks" which may include seltzer water.
>Soft drink consumption during meals was linked to mild to severe tooth damage [65]. No matter when they were consumed, other acidic meals and beverages were not linked to tooth damage [40].
Anyway, net is this: I'm not saying sparkling water carries absolutely no risk, but linking a study like this and cherry picking quotes to make it sound like sparkling water is going to destroy your teeth is misleading.
If drinking sparkling water helps you kick your soda habit, please definitely make the switch. It's so much better for you. The increased risk from drinking sparkling water compared to still water is not worth worrying about if sparkling water provides a quality of life increase for you.
Everything in healthcare is about moderated risk and counterbalancing it against lifestyle.
Artificial sweeteners do not need to be as safe as bottled water.
They just need to be less harmful than sugar. Which they are, because sugar is unequivocally, very very bad for you.
So all fruit is bad for you? Lactose is unequivocally bad? Even for nursing infants? How deep does "unequivocally" go exactly?
I hope you really just mean "added sugar in soda-tier quantities" when you say sugar is "unequivocally, very very bad". But I think this kind of hyperbole is part of why food science has got an awful reputation. Even the most 'enlightened' sources (and there are plenty of competing enlightened sources right now) seem unable to stop the totalizing language.
To a first approximation, "sugar is bad for you" seems to be a succinct lie-to-children[1] default, from where exceptions can be established. Whole fruits with lots of sugars (as opposed to e.g fruit juices with a comparable amount) are purportedly less-bad because they're accompanied by enough fiber to slow digestion and make the sugar less bioavailable.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie-to-children
I regularly drank Diet Cokes 25 years ago, and remember some batches would be "worse" than others.
And, whether from cans or plasic bottles, you're either also getting the can's lining or the plastic from the container mixed into the soda, right? I mean, it's an acidic liquid, so there is bound to be some dissolution of the lining into the fluid, by my understanding, with the more the warmer the temp.
And I do wonder what temp the bottling takes place at.
Of course, there's methanol is fruit and vegetable juices and your body will metabolize pectin containing fruit to methanol too.