To not understand why tons of people believe artificial sweeteners are more harmful than sugar?

[HavelockVetinari]

There is no scientific evidence to back up the various claims that it's addictive, carcinogenic...etc. Yet I'm always reading posts on social media that disparage sugar-free drinks as dangerous and harmful to health, without a shred of evidence being offered.

I do understand that some people dislike the taste (so-called 'supertasters' apparently experienced a bitter aftertaste) but that doesn't make it harmful!

Proper Orangina is the taste of my childhood camping holidays in France.

I like to drink squash, the stuff you dilute. The only squash I can drink is M&S orange high juice which contains sugar and the Waitrose one. Neither contain sweeteners. Sainsburys do one, but it has glucose syrup in which raises my blood sugar too quickly and makes me feel ill. I have to travel 10 miles in one direction for M&S and 15 miles in the other direction for Waitrose. I buy around 20 bottles each time I visit, if I can afford it. I do get funny looks from other shoppers. All that trouble just for a sodding drink of squash. Cordial is too sweet, fresh juice gives me cystitis, I can't drink alcohol and the sugared fevertree tonic is too expensive.

Asda has started doing squash with no sweeteners. In 3 flavours.

And there's a polish brand you can get in polish shops or Tesco but they often use high fructose corn syrup. It's still sugar.

You are correct about the insulin, Drogos.

It IS hard to avoid them as most retailers and cafes/restaurants simply aren't stocking many full sugar drinks any more AND even supposedly non diet drinks now have them added as the recipes have been changed because of the sugar tax.

If like me you're also wanting/needing to avoid caffeine it's high on impossible!

Because basically the only completely unadulterated drink left that's widely available is Coke!

I'll bet their sales have done very nicely from this!

And the labelling is shit! On non diet drinks it's only in the more diets and how small is the writing on a can?!

At the very least clearer and larger labelling needs to come in.

"After all, if this is a positive change, and the food tastes just as good

, and there are no health concerns, what could possibly be the reason to hide it?" Exactly!

"artificial sweetners were perfectly fine (althgouh there's a difference between aspartamene or stevia and xylitol/maltitol - the lattter did affect my blood sugar"

Well, contradicting yourself in the very same paragraph!

"Of course I’ve heard of the sugar tax, that has nothing to do with how hard it is to avoid sweeteners" don't be ridiculous it's the one and only reason many drinks manufacturers have changed their recipes! It's a direct result of the sugar tax!

Also bloody annoying that they've been added to certain foods.

Certain sweeteners very definitely have a laxative effect on me.

As many on this thread have stated its NOT just about taste/preference.

This is why clear and honest labelling is SO important.

Given recent issues/news stories re allergies I personally think that whenever manufacturers change a recipe/formula they should have to make that VERY clear on products and advertising I would say for at least 6 months from when they make the change.

I've been caught out several times over the years by manufacturers not doing this (though mainly on skin products as mainly to do with eczema) so annoying.

Heard that about the insulin too. My diabetic FIL gets thru a lot of these diet drinks and it does worry me. He’s been told it’s all fine 🤷‍♀️

@soydora

Not bothered at all. Just commenting on yet another bandwaggony thing people jump on, spread huge misinformation and before you know it, everyone is affected because “the public really want this”

And I’m still waiting for the actual science the OP asked for it. Rather than conspiracy theories for why it doesn’t exist (or does, they just aren’t telling you......🙄)

It IS hard to avoid them as most retailers and cafes/restaurants simply aren't stocking many full sugar drinks any more
No one stocking water, huh?

How is water (which IS what I mainly drink which I stated already) a full sugar drink?

Yes we could live only drinking water but it's not necessary and in this day and age we should have a choice

Well aren't you just a bundle of joy, Yabbers?

Maybe we should all live out our lives only drinking water and eating plain porridge, so that you can't be bizarrely offended by the gustatory choices of complete strangers.

Next time I go out for a celebratory meal, shall I eschew anything actually tasty that I might enjoy, and ask for a jug of tap so that some nouveau Puritan can approve of my choices?

Your anger about other people's preferences is really strange.

Any kind of artificial sweetener, inc stevia, bring on the most violent, throwing up, blind in one eye migraine for me, and I can tell after the first sip, give me a can of Turkish full fat coke any day of the week, and for background, I avoid sugar as much as I can, don't have it in my hot drinks, only drink water as a general, but you've got to have a coke with your vodka and artificial sweetener just ruins it. Incidentally, vodka does not induce migraines, is made from potatoes, and that's good enough to almost be a vegetable. Healthy me!

Sweeteners taste like the devil's sweaty ballsack.

Science.

I mostly drink water but sometimes I'd like a treaty drink and I don't want to pay restaurant or pub prices for plain water and like a PP says, you can't just walk into a pub for a glass of tap water.

Oh, but you shouldn't have treats, Barbara. Not if they have sugar in them, and there's perfectly good water in the tap.

Because science.

Using Facebook and the likes for information is always going to cause problems. Try PubMed, Mercola.com (all refs cited) and the British Medical Journal for medical studies and information that's not properganda

Yes, we know that 4legs, but research studies only show trends at population level, they do not predict entirely how any individual will react. This will depend on many factors, including phenotype, levels of processing enzymes, food sensitivities, pre-existing medical conditions, etc.

Or, like me, you could just want to avoid them because they taste like arse. As a full-grown adult, I would like to make that choice for myself.

I can only tolerate stevia based ones, all others give me the runs and are not recommended after bariatric surgery. Makes life very difficult because they are everywhere.

The NHS has an article about artificial sweetners raising likelihood of diabetes. here is a fairly balanced discussion. Research looks fairly reasonable if you go back to the source, and seemed to be fairly well done in mice, but hadn't studied enough humans to say this for definite.

This is a pubmed article about artificial sweetners and cancer.
Conclusion is: The statistical value of this review is limited by the heterogeneity and observational designs of the included studies. Although there is limited evidence to suggest that heavy consumption may increase the risk of certain cancers, overall the data presented are inconclusive as to any relationship between artificial sweeteners and cancer.
So basically it looks likely that heavy consumption does increase the likelihood of certain cancers but more research is needed before you can say that for certainty.

Interestingly, though looking at the results, there are also some cancers that seem to have reduced risk.
Two of the increased risk are labelled "for men" and the reduced risk is breast and ovanian, which could be seen as "women's" cancers (yes I know breast can be men too). This inverse relationship has been replicated in other studies too.

From that I wonder if it would be interesting to see if artificial sweetners do cause different issues in men/women.

Try PubMed, Mercola.com (all refs cited) and the British Medical Journal for medical studies and information that's not properganda

Pubmed and BMJ absolutely are good sources. I also really like www.mayoclinic.org if I cba to sort through pubmed.

Mercola.com is not in the same class at all.

www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/mercola.html

In 2012, an article in Chicago Magazine reported that Mercola had stopped practicing medicine six years previously to focus on his Web site [7]. However, his decision may have been influenced by a 3-year battle with the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation [8]. I did not see any mention of this on his Web site, and the site invited patients to come to his clinic—which was renamed Dr. Mercola's Natural Health Center—for detoxification, chiropractic, Dispensary, Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT), Functional Medicine Program, homeopathy, Neuro-Structural Integration Technique (NST), nutritional consultation, Nutritional Typing Test, thermography, Total Body Modification (TBM), and Active Isolated Stretching.

In September 2014, Mercola announced that he had closed the clinic "in order to devote his full time and attention to research, education and increasing public awareness." [9]

Many of Mercola's articles make unsubstantiated claims and clash with those of leading medical and public health organizations. For example, he opposes immunization [10] fluoridation. [11], mammography [12], and the routine administration of vitamin K shots to the newborn [13,14]; claims that amalgam fillings are toxic [15]; and makes many unsubstantiated recommendations for dietary supplements. Mercola's reach has been greatly boosted by repeated promotion on the "Dr. Oz Show."