Silverblaze 20 hours ago
There's no known health benefit to eating mustard on your hamburger, either, but a lot of people think it makes the mustard taste better. And there's no health reason to put cheese on every sandwich a restaurant serves--in fact, given the fat content of most cheese, there are reasons not to eat so much of it. But just try telling people to eat a plain hamburger instead of a cheeseburger.
19 hours ago
As the article states: "Research suggests that stevia and monk fruit, the natural sugar substitutes, are safe for human consumption, though it's not clear that they lead to weight loss." We also ran this article recently: click here
SusanBAfromResistanceville 10 hours ago
using stevia doesn't cause me to lose weight
There's a good reason for that: the plethora of science studies showing that Stevia interferes with fat-burning processes, especially lipolysis. Stop using it without adding sugars, and though your weight might not shrink much, your waistline will.
Priceofcivilization 21 hours ago
As you consume less sugar, and don't replace it with a chemical taste that is a poor imitation, one tastes the flavor of the food more. Slowly (over a year or more) you get to where a very sugary food is almost painful, or at least unpleasant because you can't taste the food.
I went through a similar change in perception when I went from premium ice cream with the highest levels of fat to sorbets and gelatos. Now I want as much fresh flavor as possible, and not too much thick fat as a sludgy barrier between the food and my taste buds.
I would only consider soft drinks if they cut the sugar by 50%-75% so I could taste the cola or ginger. And they can't replace the sugar with a chemical, just let me enjoy the flavor.
capsfan16 21 hours ago
I'm glad to see a dietary guideline that doesn't recommend sugar substitutes. I'm with Canada - if there's no benefit, there's no reason to endorse a food group. That way it's easier to think of sweet (or processed) foods as occasional treats rather than daily staples.
LaurenK 21 hours ago
One of the things this article strongly seems to suggest is that *how* people use artificial sweeteners matters. If you're legitimately using them in place of actual sugars, the risk seems mitigated. Since it is specifically mentioned that most users (who have the associated risks) are NOT replacing sugars but are instead adding these artificial ones in, wouldn't it be necessary to establish a control group of those who ARE using them as recommended in order to actually determine if there are risks? And yes, I've definitely seen the people who order diet soda so they can double up on something else, but there's a very important missing answer to a question that doesn't seem to be asked here--specifically "Are people who are making the most use of artificial sweeteners ALSO engaging in other unhealthful habits that could increase their risk for disease?" It's not unlike the guidance from a few years back suggesting that people who didn't see dentists regularly were at more risk for cardiac disease. This is *true* but it's not due to an innate dental/cardiac connection. It's due to the fact that people who neglected their teeth were more likely to be neglecting other aspects of their health as well. The reason this strikes me is "off" is because it's missing a big second part. It doesn't mean it's not true or correct, but it's going to be hard to PROVE it without that additional information.