Not-so-sweet about sweets: sugar substitutes

What kinds of sweeteners are there?

Sweeteners use substances that have a pronounced sweet taste, with calories and glycemic index lower than sugar and glucose.

Among natural-origin sweeteners, one of the most popular is fructose. And this can be somewhat justified for people with diabetes, since fructose is 1.7 times sweeter than sugar and has a glycemic index about 3 times lower. However, it has the same caloric content!

We should note that fructose metabolism differs significantly from glucose metabolism. It also does not trigger the activation of satiety hormones (leptin). Therefore, when we eat two pastries with real sugar, our “glucose brake” works—we feel that we’ve eaten too much. Pastries based on fructose won’t have this effect and will be perceived by our systems as something gentler. The same goes for fruits — they can be quite hard to truly overeat, even though their calorie content can be surprisingly high! In addition, fructose absorption is quite limited: with excessive consumption, it can cause abdominal discomfort and diarrhea. Excessive fructose consumption is associated with numerous metabolic disorders.

Another group of natural-origin sweeteners is polyols — sorbitol, xylitol, maltitol, mannitol, erythritol, etc. They have a relatively moderate sweetness level and are mostly used in combinations. They also help maintain product moisture, texture, and volume. They influence shelf life and color stability. That’s why they often appear not as sweeteners themselves but as other food additives. Polyols have lower energy value because they cannot be fully digested. During their degradation in our body, short-chain fatty acids are formed (which is not entirely bad) and gases (which is a bit worse). Their glycemic index is also low, making them common guests on the labels of diabetic products. Some of them are even considered prebiotics or anticariogenic agents and have a laxative effect.

A striking character in the world of sweeteners is stevioside. It is 200 times sweeter than sugar, does not affect the glycemic index, and does not contribute to the caloric content of our diet. It is derived from a plant called stevia. Stevia — a shrub and a relative of the asters, growing in eastern Paraguay, contains several dozen glycosides with a sweet taste, the most famous of which are stevioside and rebaudioside. They have become the golden vein for many planters around the world, and now stevia is commercially cultivated not only in South America but also in China, Korea, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, Greece, and even Israel. The chemical industry is not lagging and also brings tons of synthetic steviolide to the market. The suspicious beauty of steviolide is also that it has antihypertensive properties. And so far stevioside has a fairly impeccable reputation.

Another interesting "natural" sweetener is thaumatin. This is a protein component that is two thousand times sweeter than sugar. Thaumatin is extracted from the tropical plant Thaumatococcus danielli. In the United States it is not registered as a sweetener, but is also approved as a flavor enhancer.

There are also quite a few synthetic sweeteners — cyclamate, aspartame, saccharin, sucralose, acesulfame potassium, etc. Their broad use has sparked constant debates about safety. New and new studies shift these debates back and forth.

For example, cyclamate. It was cyclamate that began the suspicious attitude toward sugar substitutes, because cyclamate was suspected of being carcinogenic. And although these suspicions were not confirmed in epidemiological studies, as they say, the sting remained. Today cyclamate is banned in a large number of countries.

In the United States, sweeteners are considered safe and used — aspartame, saccharin, sucralose, neotame, acesulfame-K, and stevia. Recently, the list was expanded to include mogroside extract (Siraitia grosvenorii) and advantame.

Why are sweeteners a somewhat questionable solution?

Without exaggeration, the label on a package saying "no sugar" today is a popular marketing ploy. And for a discerning consumer, such labeling invites fair curiosity to peek at the small print on the back of the package and figure out what the “betrayal” is.

As mentioned earlier, consuming products with sweeteners may not give a feeling of satiety; we eat sweets and the “stop mechanism” does not work.

Also, instead of getting used to less sweet flavors, we may even more become accustomed to them and crave even sweeter things;

Sometimes there is also the so-called "sugar substitute indulgence" — we allow ourselves more because it’s "sugar-free." Instead, we often end up with extra portions of saturated fats and other components that aren’t very valuable for our bodies.

Interesting studies using saccharin, published in Nature showed that consumption of sugar substitutes may promote the development of glucose intolerance and metabolic syndrome. Not just in some way, but through influencing the composition of the gut microbiota. Moreover, in other mice that received altered microbiota but were not fed saccharin, these symptoms also developed.

Therefore, it is likely that over time the list of FDA-recommended sweeteners may change.

Some concern is raised about the use of sugar substitutes in vulnerable groups of people — pregnant and nursing women, children, and people with migraines and epilepsy. They are most susceptible to possible adverse effects of sugar substitutes.

In particular, there is talk about a possible link between artificial sweeteners during pregnancy and increased risks of preterm birth.

Some researchers also point out that aspartate may act as a trigger for migraines.

Aspartate is also contraindicated for consumption by patients with phenylketonuria.

There is also discussion that artificial sweeteners should generally not be present in the diet of children under 2 years old and their use should be limited during pregnancy and lactation.

Photo by Quiony Navarro on Unsplash