But most of us are accustomed to sweet foods, and don’t want to live our lives without them.
For this reason, various artificial chemicals have been invented to replicate the effects of sugar.
These are substances that can stimulate the sweet taste receptors on the tongue.
They usually have no calories and don’t have the harmful metabolic effects of added sugar.
These chemicals are known as “artificial” sweeteners … as opposed to “natural” sweeteners like sugar or honey.
These chemicals are very sweet, and they are often added to foods and beverages that are then marketed as weight loss friendly … which makes sense given that they are virtually calorie free.
However, despite increased use of these low-calorie sweeteners (and diet foods in general), the obesity epidemic has only gotten worse.
The evidence regarding artificial sweeteners is actually fairly mixed and the use of these substances is highly controversial.
So … what is the truth about artificial sweeteners? How do they affect appetite, body weight and our risk for obesity-related disease?
Let’s have a look …
There Are Many Different Types of Artificial Sweeteners
There are numerous different artificial sweeteners available and the chemical structure varies between them.
What they all have in common, is that they are incredibly effective at stimulating the sweet taste receptors on the tongue.
In fact, most are hundreds of times sweeter than sugar, gram for gram.
Here is a table showing the most common artificial sweeteners, how sweet they are relative to sugar, and brand names they are sold under:
Then there are other low-calorie sweeteners that are processed from natural ingredients and therefore don’t count as “artificial.”
This includes the natural zero-calorie sweetener stevia, as well as sugar alcohols like xylitol, erythritol, sorbitol and mannitol. Sugar alcohols tend to have similar sweetness as sugar but less than half as many calories.
This article is strictly about the artificial sweeteners … but you can read about the natural ones here.
Bottom Line: There are many different types of artificial sweeteners. The most common ones are aspartame, sucralose, saccharin, neotame and acesulfame potassium
Artificial Sweeteners and Appetite Regulation
Animals, including humans, don’t just seek food to satisfy energy needs.
We also seek so-called “reward” from food.
While artificial sweeteners provide sweet taste, many researchers believe that the lack of calories prevents complete activation of the food reward pathway.
This may be the reason artificial sweeteners are linked with increased appetite and cravings for sugary food in some studies (8).
Magnetic imaging in 5 men showed that sugar consumption decreased signalling in the hypothalamus, the appetite regulator of the brain (9).
This response was not seen with consumption of aspartame, suggesting that the brain does not register artificial sweeteners as having a satiating effect.
It may be that sweetness without the calories leads to further food seeking behavior, adding to your overall caloric intake.
Bottom Line: Some researchers believe that artificial sweeteners do not satisfy our biological sugar cravings in the same manner as sugar, and could therefore lead to increased food intake. However, the evidence is mixed.
Sweeteners and Sugar Cravings
Another argument opposing artificial sweeteners is that the unnatural sweetness encourages sugar cravings and sugar dependence.
This idea is logical considering that flavor preferences in humans can be trained with repeated exposure (13).
While this is not proven, it does seem to make sense. The more we eat of sweet foods, the more we want them.
Bottom Line: The strong sweetness of artificial sweeteners may be causing us to become dependent on sweet flavor. This could increase our desire for sweet foods in general.
Observational Studies on Artificial Sweeteners and Body Weight
Many observational studies have been conducted on artificial sweeteners.
These kinds of studies take a group of people and ask them about various factors, such as what they eat.
Then many years later, they can see whether a particular variable (such as artificial sweetener use) was associated with either an increased or decreased risk of disease.
These types of studies don’t prove anything, but they can help us find patterns that warrant further investigation.
Several of these studies have paradoxically found that artificially sweetened drinks are linked to weight gain rather than weight loss (16).
However, the most recent review, which summarized the findings of 9 observational studies, found that artificial sweeteners were associated with a slightly higher BMI, but not with body weight or fat mass (17).
I should point out that this study was industry sponsored. It doesn’t mean that the results are invalid, just that we should be extra skeptical because the funding source of a study can often skew the results and the interpretation of the data (18).
That being said … correlation does not imply causation, so these studies don’t prove anything one way or the other.
Fortunately, the effects of artificial sweeteners on body weight have also been studied in numerous controlled trials (real science).
Bottom Line: Some observational studies have found artificial sweeteners to be linked with increased weight, but the evidence is mixed.
Controlled Trials on Artificial Sweeteners
One of the largest trials looked at 641 children aged 4-11 years who had to drink either 250 ml (8.5 ounces) of an artificially sweetened drink, or the same amount of a sugary drink every day for 18 months.
The children who were assigned the artificially sweetened drinks gained significantly less weight and less fat than the sugar-drinking children (19).
The most recent review of 15 clinical trials found that replacing sugary drinks with their artificially sweetened versions can result in modest weight loss of about 1.8 lbs (0.8 kg), on average (17).
So… according to the best available evidence, artificial sweeteners appear to be mildly effective for weight loss.
They certainly don’t seem to cause weight gain, at least not on average.
Bottom Line: Numerous controlled trials have studied the effects of artificial sweeteners on body weight. On average, replacing sugar-sweetened beverages with diet beverages may cause weight loss of about 2 pounds.
Artificial Sweeteners and Metabolic Health
All of this being said, health is about way more than just weight.
There are some observational studies (again, studies that don’t prove anything) linking artificial sweetener consumption to metabolic disease.
This includes an increased risk of metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes and heart disease.
Another study found that these beverages were linked to a 34 percent greater risk of metabolic syndrome (26).
This is supported by a recent high-profile study on artificial sweeteners, showing that they caused a disruption in the gut bacterial environment and induced glucose intolerance in both rats and humans (27).
Whether artificial sweeteners cause problems by disrupting the gut bacteria needs to be studied further, but it appears that there may be some cause for concern.
Take Home Message
Replacing sugar with artificial sweeteners may be helpful in reducing body weight, but only very slightly at best.
Their intake certainly does not seem to cause weight gain, at least not in the short-term.
At the end of the day, artificial sweeteners are not “toxic” like some people make them out to be, but I’m not convinced that they’re perfectly safe either.
The research goes both ways … and the decision about using them must come down to the individual.
If you’re healthy, happy and satisfied with the results you’re getting and you happen to use artificial sweeteners… then there’s no need to change anything. If it ain’t broken, don’t fix it.
However … if you suffer from cravings, poor blood sugar control or any mysterious health problem, avoiding artificial sweeteners may be one of many things to consider.
Different strokes for different folks.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
To hear many journalists tell it, the spring of 2020 has brought a series of extraordinary revelations. Look at what the nation has learned: That our health-care system was not remotely up to the challenge of a deadly pandemic. That our economic safety net was largely nonexistent. That our vulnerability to disease and death was directly tied to our race and where we live. That our political leadership sowed misinformation that left people dead. That systemic racism and the killing of Black people by police is undiminished, despite decades of protest and so many Black lives lost.
- Climate Crisis Brings India's Worst Locust Invasion in Decades ... ›
- Climate Crisis Made Australia's Historic Wildfires at Least 30% More ... ›
- 4 Climate Crisis Solutions No One Is Talking About - EcoWatch ›
- Top Government Scientist Transferred After Questioning Trump ... ›
- Trump Admin Manipulated Wildfire Science to Encourage Logging ... ›
- NOAA Officials Backed Trump's False Dorian Claims Under Threat ... ›
- Coronavirus and the Terrifying Muzzling of Public Health Experts ... ›
- 'Science Under Siege' From Trump Admin: New Report Warns We ... ›
More than 350 elephants have died in Botswana since May, and no one knows why.
- Botswana Auctions Off First Licenses to Kill Elephants Since Ending ... ›
- 'Heartbreaking' Vulture Poisoning in South Africa Raises Alarm ... ›
The chance that UK summer days could hit the 40 degree Celsius mark on the thermometer is on the rise, a new study from the country's Met Office Hadley Centre has found.
- As Extreme Weather Turns Deadly in the UK, Climate Activists Are ... ›
- UK Parliament First in World to Declare Climate Emergency ... ›
By Melissa Hawkins
After sustained declines in the number of COVID-19 cases over recent months, restrictions are starting to ease across the United States. Numbers of new cases are falling or stable at low numbers in some states, but they are surging in many others. Overall, the U.S. is experiencing a sharp increase in the number of new cases a day, and by late June, had surpassed the peak rate of spread in early April.
Seven day rolling average of number of people confirmed to have COVID-19, per day (not including today). This chart gets updated once per day with data by Johns Hopkins. Johns Hopkins university doesn't provide reliable data for March 12 and March 13. Johns Hopkins CSSE Get the data
To Have a Second Wave, the First Wave Needs to End.<p>A wave of an infection describes a large rise and fall in the number of cases. There isn't a precise epidemiological definition of when a wave begins or ends.</p><p>But with talk of a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/27/new-covid-19-clusters-across-world-spark-fear-of-second-wave" target="_blank">second wave in the news</a>, as an <a href="https://www.american.edu/cas/faculty/mhawkins.cfm" target="_blank">epidemiologist and public health researcher</a>, I think there are two necessary factors that must be met before we can colloquially declare a second wave.</p><p>First, the virus would have to be controlled and transmission brought down to a very low level. That would be the end of the first wave. Then, the virus would need to reappear and result in a large increase in cases and hospitalizations.</p><p>Many countries in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0908-8" target="_blank">Europe and Asia have successfully ended the first wave</a>. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/08/new-zealand-abandons-covid-19-restrictions-after-nation-declared-no-cases" target="_blank">New Zealand</a> and <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/06/08/how-iceland-beat-the-coronavirus" target="_blank">Iceland</a> have also made it through their first waves and are now essentially coronavirus-free, with very low levels of community transmission and only a handful of active cases currently.</p>
Different States, Different Trends<p>Looking at U.S. numbers as a whole hides what is really going on. Different states are in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-us-cases.html" target="_blank">vastly different situations right now</a> and when you look at states individually, four major categories emerge.</p><ol><li>Places where the first wave is ending: States in the Northeast and a few scattered elsewhere experienced large initial spikes but were able to mostly contain the virus and substantially brought down new infections. <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/new-york-coronavirus-cases.html" target="_blank">New York</a> is a good example of this.</li><li>Places still in the first wave: Several states in the South and West – see <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/texas-coronavirus-cases.html" target="_blank">Texas</a> and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/california-coronavirus-cases.html" target="_blank">California</a> – had some cases early on, but are now seeing massive surges with no sign of slowing down.</li><li>Places in between: Many states were hit early in the first wave, managed to slow it down, but are either at a plateau – like <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/north-dakota-coronavirus-cases.html" target="_blank">North Dakota</a> – or are now seeing steep increases – like <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/oklahoma-coronavirus-cases.html" target="_blank">Oklahoma</a>.</li><li>Places experiencing local second waves: Looking only at a state level, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/hawaii-coronavirus-cases.html" target="_blank">Hawaii</a>, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/montana-coronavirus-cases.html" target="_blank">Montana</a> and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/alaska-coronavirus-cases.html" target="_blank">Alaska</a> could be said to be experiencing second waves. Each state experienced relatively small initial outbreaks and was able to reduce spread to single digits of daily new confirmed cases, but are now all seeing spikes again.</li></ol><p>The trends aren't surprising based on how states have been dealing with reopening. The virus will go wherever there are susceptible people and until the U.S. stops community spread across the entire country, the first wave isn't over.</p>
What Could a Second Wave Look Like?<p>It is possible – though at this point it seems unlikely – that the U.S. could control the virus before a vaccine is developed. If that happens, it would be time to start thinking about a second wave. The question of what it might look like depends in large part on everyone's actions.</p><p>The <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.1086%2F592454" target="_blank">1918 flu pandemic</a> was characterized by a mild first wave in the winter of 1917-1918 that went away in summer. After restrictions were lifted, people very quickly went back to pre-pandemic life. But a second, deadlier strain came back in fall of 1918 and third in spring of 1919. In total, <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1918-commemoration/1918-pandemic-history.htm" target="_blank">more than 500 million people were infected</a> worldwide and upwards of <a href="https://theconversation.com/compare-the-flu-pandemic-of-1918-and-covid-19-with-caution-the-past-is-not-a-prediction-138895" target="_blank">50 million died</a> over the course of three waves.</p><p>It was the combination of a quick return to normal life and a mutation in the flu's genome that made it more deadly that led to the horrific second and third waves.</p><p>Thankfully, the coronavirus appears to be much more <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meegid.2020.104351" target="_blank">genetically stable</a> than the influenza virus, and thus less likely to mutate into a more deadly variant. That leaves human behavior as the main risk factor.</p><p>Until a <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-needs-to-go-right-to-get-a-coronavirus-vaccine-in-12-18-months-136816" target="_blank">vaccine or effective treatment is developed</a>, the tried-and-true public health measures of the last months – <a href="https://theconversation.com/this-simple-model-shows-the-importance-of-wearing-masks-and-social-distancing-140423" target="_blank">social distancing,</a> <a href="https://theconversation.com/masks-help-stop-the-spread-of-coronavirus-the-science-is-simple-and-im-one-of-100-experts-urging-governors-to-require-public-mask-wearing-138507" target="_blank">universal mask wearing</a>, frequent hand-washing and avoiding crowded indoor spaces – are the ways to stop the first wave and thwart a second one. And when there are surges like what is happening now in the U.S., further reopening plans need to be put on hold.</p>
- U.S. Coronavirus Death Toll Now No. 1 in World - EcoWatch ›
- U.S. Coronavirus Deaths Pass 100,000 - EcoWatch ›
- U.S. Coronavirus Cases Top 2 Million as All 50 States Start ... ›
By Eoin Higgins
Climate advocates pointed to news Sunday that fracking giant Chesapeake Energy was filing for bankruptcy as further evidence that the fossil fuel industry's collapse is being hastened by the coronavirus pandemic and called for the government to stop propping up businesses in the field.
- Fracking Industry's Propaganda Hypes Shale Gas Production and ... ›
- Another Blow to the Fracking Industry—Chesapeake Energy's ... ›
- Former Chesapeake Energy CEO Aubrey McClendon Is Back to ... ›
By Neil King and Gabriel Borrud
Human beings all over the world agreed to strict limitations to their rights when governments made the decision to enter lockdown during the COVID-19 crisis. Many have done it willingly on behalf of the collective. So why can't this same attitude be seen when tackling climate change?
- The Crunch Question on Climate: How Can I Help? - EcoWatch ›
- The Power of Collective Action Gangnam Style - EcoWatch ›
- Scientist Finds Remarkable Way to Connect People Emotionally ... ›