The harm of excessive intake of sugar, the author will not repeat. But today, it is really strange to see that sugar substitutes, which are widely recognized by food regulators in various countries around the world, have been "shelled" and demonized on hot searches?
I don't want to analyze the commercial interest behind this and who is the biggest beneficiary of demonizing sugar substitutes. However, sweeteners approved by the National Health Commission and market supervision departments such as erythritol and steviol glycosides have been "demonized" again and again, artificially creating anxiety for consumers, which is really intriguing.
This article only briefly explains a few common "shelling" points one by one, clarifies the doubts that exist in their logic, and hopes to help everyone with healthy consumption, scientific decision-making, and rational purchase.
Why do people always want to forcibly associate "sugar substitutes" with diabetes? Can even go around spreading the unfounded conclusion that sugar-free drinks increase the risk of death by XX%?
Let's first look at the latest progress in sugar substitute research -
Professor Jotham Suez of Johns Hopkins University published in the journal Nature about the presence of saccharin (phthaloylsulfonimide) in inducing glucose intolerance. Now saccharin has been banned in many countries. In the latest existing studies, the experimental data on sucralose are not clear, and there is no association with glucose intolerance.
Professor Naveed Sattar of the University of Glasgow in the United Kingdom is more cautious, saying animal data do not always reflect the human situation. "Current epidemiological data in humans do not support a meaningful link between low-sugar beverages and diabetes risk, and sugar-rich beverages do appear to be associated with a higher risk of diabetes." These findings won't make me choose sugary drinks over diet drinks. ”
Professor Pamela Thomson of the University of Cambridge published a paper in the well-known medical journal British Journal of Nutrition on the metabolic response of sucralose intake to healthy adults and the gut microbiota, and found that subjects taking high doses of sucralose for 7 consecutive days did not change blood sugar control. The gut microbiota of these subjects did not change in the intake of sucralose or placebo.
Professor Amy Mullee, the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer, only demonstrated a positive correlation between beverages and mortality in a paper published in the Journal of the American Medical Association Internal Medicine, and did not draw a clear conclusion. The authors also state in the limitations that the observed associations may be biased due to residual confounding factors. Similarly, some scholars commented on the paper, arguing that the data from this study support any possibility, or even a rough estimate of the impact of drinking soda on lifespan?
There are many similar correlation studies in the scientific community and in the field of big data, the most famous of which is the story of beer and diapers sold together. "Correlation" does not equal "causality", that is, two concepts A and B, which are neither necessary nor sufficient.
Everyone knows that the rooster is white all his life, is it because the chicken has brightened the sky? This is a classic example of a condition that is neither sufficient nor necessary.
On August 11 this year, the Singapore government introduced a strict "sugar control" bill, if it is true that as some "experts" said, sugar substitutes and sugar have no essential difference in causing diabetes and other issues, why does the Singapore government control "sugar" instead of "sugar substitute"?
Does sugar substitute affect the intestinal flora, is it equivalent to "sugar substitute harmful"?
First, let's look at the main points of such a paper -
Alexander Rodriguez-Palacios, school of medicine at Case Western Reserve University, published an article in the internationally renowned gastroenterology academic journal "Inflammatory Bowel Diseases", arguing that sucralose may promote CD propensity and parallel microbiome changes in healthy hosts, but this did not lead to an increase in MPO levels in healthy mice. And the mice in the experiment ingested sucralose far more than we could drink in a drink.
To put it bluntly, eating anything may promote microbial changes, that is, affect the intestinal flora to change, but it will not cause negative effects. The professor also said in the paper that sucralose is energy-free, high sweetness, pure sweetness, high safety and other characteristics, and is currently one of the best functional sweeteners.
"Tolerance" is by no means the same as "safety", what is the reason why natural sugar substitutes have been repeatedly "beaten"?
Let's take a look at a new paper specifically on erythritol .
The erythritol research paper published in the journal Wiley, "Gastric Emptying of Solutions Containing the Natural Sweetener Erythritol and Its Effect on Human Gastrointestinal Hormone Secretion: A Preliminary Dose Range Study," has the following main points:
Erythritol intake had no effect on blood glucose, insulin, glucagon, motilin or GIP release, lipid or uric acid concentrations.
In this trial, doses of up to 50 grams of erythritol, administered in liquids as a single bolus dose, were well tolerated.
The combination of these properties makes erythritol an attractive sugar substitute, especially in people with fragile metabolism – obese and diabetics.
Erythritol is a widely used and mainstream high-grade sugar substitute on the market, not to mention that the paper directly proves that its tolerance is problem-free. Taking ten thousand steps back, even if there is a real tolerance problem, some people will arbitrarily change the concept of "tolerance" into "safety". Lactose intolerance in milk by individual consumers in the crowd is a very common phenomenon, but can we question the safety of milk? The discussion of "tolerance" and "safety" Li Daitao is another intriguing.
Sugar substitutes trick the brain and increase appetite? Of all the comprehensive negative reviews of sugar substitutes, is even one really hammered?
There are too many similar cases taken out of context on the Internet, and the space is limited, so I will not list them all. Some "experts" will add the word "possible" in order to show rigor, and everyone pays more attention to these "text tricks" when reading. During the period of sugar-substitute drink fire, such a title was given for traffic. After the market calmly accepted sugar substitute drinks, such headlines are not just for traffic.
There is no doubt about the safety of sugar substitutes, as long as the sugar substitutes approved by the national food safety regulatory authorities have been subjected to a large number of toxicological tests and set up strict safety factors. As long as it is not over-added, it will not cause food safety problems.
This article is from the financial community