you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -26 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (42 children)

Artificial sweeteners are arguibly often worse than sugar

EDIT: people, learn to read. I never said "All are worse", I said "arguibly often", meaning there is alot we don't know and some of the artificial/ultra processed sweeteners show terrible things in studies. Just use the safest one like aspartame and don't risk with weird unknown substances. For fucks sake.. If you read a study that has found that using something has increased brain aging by 38% in humans and you still focus on some rat study insead of real human data as an excuse for all other studies being invalid, then I have a bridge to sell you.

  • source
  • hideshow 42 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Alulose, monk fruit, stevia. There are 3 fully "natural" sugar alternatives.

    I agree that sugar alcohols can be bad for your gut and liver. As well as some are cut with carcinogenic fillers, but there are sugar alternatives that have VERY little effect on you. And actually alulose can be beneficial to your gut microbiome, while not affecting calorie intake and liver processing

    Stevia, if the aftertaste doesn't bother you, is definitely the most affordable and passes through the body with barely a trace. I know you didn't mention cost, but I do admit that alulose is significantly more expensive than sucrose. Around $30 for a 5 lb bag vs $8 for a 25lb bag of sucrose. But Stevia is often sold without filler, like xylytol, which a lot of monk fruit is unfortunately cut with to make the amount bigger.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    I'm in the UK and spoiler alert as we had sugar tax for years. Every drink is filled with aspartame and asulphare k to get under the limit.

    What are good, and what happens are two different things. I think coca-cola abandoned their stevia experiment because it didn't sell.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 34 points 2 months ago (30 children)

    If you drink 3000+ cans of diet a day you will approach the lower limit of what’s considered safe.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 30 child comments
  • [+] -13 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (29 children)

    Weird comment knowing how little we know about artificial sweeteners and it's long term impact on the body. Actually, quite dangerous comment.

    But you can start here; https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/sugar-substitutes-new-cardiovascular-concerns

    Or here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40902134/

    Or here; https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10465821/

    Also fun fact about sorbitol; https://source.washu.edu/2025/11/alternative-sweetener-sorbitol-linked-to-liver-disease/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 29 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Unabashed fear-mongering. The last one is about zebrafish.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

    Please read the entire article. Same mechanisms apply to humans.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago

    Why?

    From the linked study:

    Editor’s summary
    Excess dietary intake of fructose can lead to hepatic lipid accumulation and the development of steatotic liver disease. In zebrafish, Jackstadt et al. found that dietary glucose was converted to sorbitol in the intestine, which was subsequently converted to fructose in the liver in the absence of gut microbiota. Antibiotic treatment of zebrafish to deplete gut microbiota resulted in hepatic steatosis, an effect mimicked by high concentrations of exogenous sorbitol and attenuated by inhibiting sorbitol formation or by intestinal repopulation with sorbitol-degrading Aeromonas bacteria. These results indicate that sorbitol is derived from glucose in the zebrafish intestine, implicate gut microbiota in protecting against sorbitol-induced steatosis, and suggest that dietary sorbitol, which is used as a sugar substitute, may increase the risk of developing steatotic liver disease. —Wei Wong

    Abstract
    Metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) is linked to a shift in the composition of the gut microbiome. Here, we found that depletion of the gut microbiome in adult zebrafish led to the development of steatotic liver disease in animals on standard diets. Using metabolomics and isotope tracing, we found that dietary glucose was converted to sorbitol by host intestinal cells. Although bacteria degraded sorbitol in control animals, sorbitol was transferred to the livers of fish when the gut microbiome had been depleted. Within the liver, sorbitol was converted into fructose 1-phosphate, which subsequently activated glucokinase and increased glycolytic flux, leading to increased hepatic glycogen and fat content. Inhibition of sorbitol production in microbiome-depleted animals was sufficient to prevent the development of steatotic liver, and colonizing the intestines of microbiome-depleted fish with sorbitol-degrading Aeromonas bacterial strains rescued the steatotic liver phenotype. Conversely, exogenous administration of high concentrations of sorbitol phenocopied gut microbiota depletion and induced hepatic steatosis. Together, these findings show that sorbitol-degrading bacteria in the gut protect against steatotic liver disease and suggest that excessive intake of dietary sorbitol may pose a risk for the development of MASLD.

    They're implicating several types of natural sugars and saying that if you killed your gut microbiome with high concentration of sorbitol, then it might be bad for your liver. Ok??? Without any indication of the human-equivalent amounts involved, this is utterly useless. And this from a team who already went "HFCS feeds cancer!"? Seems like headline-chasers to me.

    Also, since I read this earlier today:

    The UK’s Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition in 2015 disputed the claims of fructose causing metabolic disorders, stating that “there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that fructose intake, at levels consumed in the normal UK diet, leads to adverse health outcomes independent of any effects related to its presence as a component of total and free sugars.”[60]

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 27 points 2 months ago (20 children)

    Not all artificial sweeteners are the same, so it's borderline meaningless to say we "know so little" about them.

    Hell, aspartame is literally the most studied food additive in the history of the FDA, and has never been shown to have any adverse effects in any reputable study.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [+] -11 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (19 children)

    and has never been shown to have any adverse effects in any reputable study.

    Again, dangerous comment. Please actually spend a minute looking around before making such bizzare claims.

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8373935/

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23097267/

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24700203/

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35324894/

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36638072/

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39547074/

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41765137/

    There are like 30 other studies showing negative effects in mice and rats.

    EDIT: Accidentally gave one bad study (see comment below), removed it. Rest seem valid.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    I usually don't bother answering a Gish Gallop, but...

    1 - They didn't complete the study, it was only 13 people with an existing history of mental disorders

    2 - They basically said it's so within the tolerances that it's probably just chance, and that regular soda did as bad or worse

    3 - Could only get the abstract, and it says nothing about their findings

    4 - Combines aspartame and acesulfame-K, so it's hard to tell from the abstract. The methodology doesn't fill me with a lot of hope for it though.

    5 - Seems to be the same study as 4 (same group of French people, same author), but for cardiovascular disease instead of cancer? Which, yeah, fat people drink diet soda, have heart disease, and get cancer more than thin people. I'm not sold on their methodology

    6 - It's a rat study. Again, I can't see anything but the abstract, so it's hard to say. But any study that doesn't do a comparative analysis against regular sugar is suspect in my book

    7 - Like 2, this one says that it's probably just chance in the conclusion.

    And look, if this was some new chemical on the block, maybe I'd agree that it should have some more testing. But it's aspartame. It's been being actively studied since 1965. It's had a lot of negative PR backed by Domino (et al), which has created a huge amount of public concern. And will all of that, the studies still come out a hundred to one that there's not really any link to anything.

    Yes, you can find studies that say "aspartame scary." But they're basically like all the ones you linked above. Dubious. Most even admit they're dubious (as seen above). And almost none of the ones that push the "scary" rhetoric compare the effects against regular table sugar, which is also heavily linked to increased cancer/heart disease risk. So it's not even intellectually honest, even when their numbers happen to random out to slightly agreeing with them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (6 children)

    Are you just going to ignore the original argument that not once we have found something bad with aspartame, while there are many things we found? Sure, the data is incomplete, sometimes it's in mix with something else, sometimes it's high dose, sometimes it's during pregnancy, but to claim it's 100% consequence free under any circumstances and amounts is fucking idiotic and very unscientific.

    EDIT: Fuck, I thought I'm on a science-related subreddit, not a circle jerk. Now everything makes sense.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    Was my initial stance of "never found anything" a hyperbole? Sure. Not much of one though.

    But your stance of "there are a hundred studies saying X for every one saying Y, but because there are a small handful saying Y we shouldn't rule Y out" probably isn't the hard scientific truth you think it is. It's basically the same logic as being anti-vax.

    And much like being anti-vax, it's examining aspartame in a vacuum, ignoring the fact that it's an alternative product to something that is factually shown to be more harmful, even in the best case scenario.

    E.g.: Are vapes bad for you? Sure. Are they worse than cigarettes? Absolutely not. So even though the ideal is to probably use neither, I'd much rather somebody vape.

    So this idea that "aspartame has, in a handful of studies (that go against the grain of the majority of studies) sometimes been shown to have negative effects, therefore artificial sweeteners are worse than sugar," is a braindead take.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    So this idea that "aspartame has, in a handful of studies (that go against the grain of the majority of studies) sometimes been shown to have negative effects, therefore artificial sweeteners are worse than sugar," is a braindead take.

    ....?

    I think you should scroll up and read my original comment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Your original comment is, "Artificial sweeteners are arguibly often worse than sugar." Literal copy and paste.

    I suppose you could be pedantic and say "arguably" is doing a ton of heavy lifting (the same way that it would be in "vaccines arguably cause autism"), but I hope you'll forgive me for reiterating that it's a braindead take.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago* (2 children)

    And a word often. Your comment re-frames as if I said all are worse, without an argument. That is VERY different from my original point, which was essentially "I understand why governments wants us to intake less random artificial sweeteners along with sugar, so this does not feel very onion-y"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    If this is true, wasn’t testfactor’s initial reply agreeing with you? Why did you spend so much time attacking aspartame, the most studied food additive ever?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago

    Because I disagreed with the claim "we have never found anything negative". Literally anything can have negative consequences, even drinking too much water. I never denied it's likely the safest one, along with stevia, but saying there is zero risk, zero negative findings, ectera is just factually, scientifically wrong.

    Sorry, I tend to be pedantic.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -10 points 2 months ago (10 children)

    I asked chatGPT and it said not to believe you because your links won't even open

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (9 children)
  • [+] -10 points 2 months ago (8 children)

    Nope I just tried again, chatGPT said they won't open

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    Why would ChatGPT even enter into the picture?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    I'm not using it to make pictures I was using it to fact check

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago* (5 children)

    Why would my comment lead you to believe I was accusing you of using it to “make photos”?

    Why would you use ChatGPT to fact check?

    Are you using it to make these comments too?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    You're the one who brought up entering pictures buddy

    I always use chatGPT to fact check. It's for my health...

    Nope I type perfectly good so I don't need it for that

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

    Good ragebait attempt, I'll give you that.

    Nobody that's serious would treat ChatGPT for a fact like this

    Or you're in a big AI delusion in which case:

    IT'S TIME TO STOP NOW!

    CHATGPT IS A RANDOM WORD GENERATOR, THAT JUST WAS MODIFIED LONG ENOUGH TO WRITE CORRECT SOUNDING SENTENCES.

    ¡¡IT ABSOLUTELY CAN'T BE TRUSTED WITH PROVIDING FACTUALLY TRUE STATEMENTS!!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Aspertame is one of the most studied chemicals in the world. It's been found over and over to be "fine" at reasonable levels of intake. A handful of "more research is needed" conclusions doesn't change that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Last I remember it lowers the body's tolerance to sugar which increases how much food people eat overall.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (4 children)

    And the fructose in fruit juice isn't "healthy" in any way. Even though it doesn't hit insulin, it does the liver, and the caloric impact is the same.

    https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/abundance-of-fructose-not-good-for-the-liver-heart

    Why do all these bills always amount to "fuck whatever it is poor people eat"?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    wtf are you talking about. Soda costs more than juice. At my local store it’s literally DOUBLE the cost of soda.

    These bills are taxing things that people are addicted to that are demonstrably bad for you. There is nothing good for you about soda. Juice is at least partially good for you. It has glucose and nutrients you actually need. Not high fructose corn syrup.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Apple Juice is $3.39 for 64 oz.. Coke is $3.69 for 2L--about 68oz; essentially the same price.

    I think what's happening here is that the natural health halo of fruit juice is absolutely short circuiting your mind.

    Ask yourself: if you added the same nutrients that are in juice to coca cola, would coca cola now be "healthy"?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    At my grocery store it’s $.08/oz for Coke and .04/oz for orange juice.

    Ask yourself: if you added the same nutrients that are in juice to coca cola, would coca cola now be "healthy"?

    The amount of free sugars is what makes soda so bad. So if you switched the types of sugars in soda, then yes, it literally would be better for you than it currently is. Coke has food dyes in it that make your comparison not equal.

    I didn’t say juice was “healthy”.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    Yes, orange juice is more expensive, but apple juice is on par cost wise, so it makes sense to consider taxing it.

    12 fl oz of coke has 39 grams of sugar. 12oz of apple juice has 35g of sugar. Less, but about the same.

    So the question comes down to is sucrose really that much worse for you than fructose.

  • source
  • parent