One of the questions that I am always asked relates to the use of artificial sweeteners. The primary concern is whether they are safe. My short answer is that, based on my reading of the literature, they are far safer than sugar. We now know the metabolic consequences of consuming sugar in spite of the largely successful efforts of the sugar industry to confuse the public on this issue. If you surf the net you can find more information about this. Here is a recent article by my good friend, Gary Taubes, on the topic of sugar industry deception:
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2012/10/sugar-industry-lies-campaign
The popularity of Dr Robert Lustig and his YouTube video, “The Bitter Truth About Sugar”, is another example of a public awakening to the fact that they have been deceived:
At the same time, if you search the web about virtually any of the artificial sweeteners, you will find all kinds of scary stories of your imminent demise should you consume any of those products. Aspartame is the target of the most intensive attacks. There are two things to be considered here. One, when you actually look at the scientific literature it is very hard to convince yourself that any of the sweeteners have any significant adverse effects. Aspartame has been rigorously studied and has been in use for over two decades now and, still, there is no conclusive evidence of any serious harm.
The second consideration gets back to sugar and the industrial lobby. Who has the most to lose should artificial sweeteners displace sugar? The sugar industry has a long history of obfuscating the science and distorting health information about their product just as the tobacco industry did when their product was under attack. Would the sugar industry hire people to promote the idea that artificial sweeteners are harmful and that a “real, natural, popular food” such as sugar is preferable? I don’t know the answer to that question but when I see the plethora of paranoid nonsense about artificial sweeteners that is propagated on the web I wonder what is behind it. Follow the money, perhaps? At any rate, my general advice to people is to avoid sugar and if they must have something sweet, to choose an artificially sweetened product based on their personal preference.
Dr Peter Attia has posted what I consider to be a thoughtful, informative and much more definitive piece on this topic at:
http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/what-are-the-side-effects-of-aspartame-stevia-and-other-sugar-substitutes
Now, your reward for reading this is that you can now try my favourite recipe for chocolate mousse. This is one of the treats that my kids love. It is quick and easy to make and can be stored in the fridge for a few days. It goes really well with a couple of thinly sliced strawberries or it can be eaten on its own.
1 litre whipping cream
1 tsp vanilla extract
5 packets Equal
3 Tbsp pure chocolate powder
Chill a large bowl and the beaters from your electric mixer in the freezer. Pour cream into the chilled bowl and mix until it just begins to stiffen. Add chocolate, vanilla and Equal. Whip until stiff. Serve alone or with a few berries. Store in a covered container in the fridge. Can also be frozen in re-usable popsicle containers.
Artificial sweeteners are “better” than sugar. And filtered cigarettes are “better” than unfiltered cigarettes. “Better” does not equal “good.”
Artificial sweeteners can be a helpful crutch to aid a sugar addict to get off the sugar, but many of us in the low-carb community have discovered that anything sweet is a potential problem. I wrote a blog post about that after a conversation with Dr. Mary Vernon (google “your small intestine has taste buds”).
“Nothing sweet. Nothing wheat.” Following that simple-minded manta alone will get you about 50% of the health benefit of a paleo lifestyle.
Dr Jay’s Reply:
I don’t disagree with most of your position. The one area where I do is the comparison of artificial sweeteners to filtered cigarettes. The toxic effects of tobacco are slightly reduced by filtering while switching from sugar to an artificial sweetener removes the toxic effect of sugar. You can debate the fines points about whether cephalic insulin secretion or the “taste buds” in the small intestine can result in undesirable levels of insulin secretion but the fact is that people benefit greatly when they get sugar out of their diet and replace it with artificial sweeteners. As I said in my post, I don’t find any convincing evidence that the artificial sweeteners have any proven harms. The cephalic insulin effect and the small intestine effect may be important for a small fraction of those who have severe insulin resistance and, for those folks, getting all sweets out of their diet is important. For the rest of us, I don’t see a case for complete abstinence from artificial sweeteners. Yet, anyway.
Your position on alcohol and caffeine and artificial sweeteners, in moderation, is typical of modern america and europe as well as the rest of the world.
It’s just a breaths hair away from the dragons and monsters that have destroying our earth in the first place.
Stimulate drugs with stimulated man.
Moderation being key here.
Our parents and grandparents addicted us to these powerful stimulant drugs from the time we were babies.
We now, inadvertently, do the same thing to our children and babies.
The children of course, like us before them, love these stimulants and in turn reward us with praise and warmth and kindness, love and affection.
These drugs, right along with sugar and hybrid carbohydrates, are completely unnatural to our native diets and beings.
They are stimulant drugs that make us “high” and make us feel good.
Cocaine and speed do the same thing.
What strikes me continually about the human body is its resilience. I tend to look at food in three ways. Is it an aspirational food that improves my health. Is it a tolerable food that I enjoy? Is it a food that creates problems over time abov a threshold toelrance? I would expect aspertame is in the second category for most people. We have plainly evolved positive feedback responses to detection of sweetness, so there is plainly a benefit of some sort. It is equally plain that sweetness detection downregulates with increased consumption of sweets, which suggests we evolved for sweetness as an exception–a condiment not a staple.It does not take much to achieve sweetness. For my kids I put less than 1/2 teaspoon of maple syrup with 500 ml of heavy cream in the siphon for whipped cream. It is plenty sweet for them. You only need detectible sweetness–not a sugar high. Even a heaping plate of the whipped cream is less than 1/8 teaspoon of maple syrup. I have no doubt they are metabolically resilient enough for that and would not develop down-regulation of sweet detection or carbohydrate intolerance over time from that. For me, a good fresh heavy cream is sweet enough on its own. Indeed, roamine lettuce can be cloyingly sweet for me. No down-regulation of sweet detection for me. I find I never need aspartame or otehr sweeteners, but I live in a world with other people.
Dr Jay’s Reply:
I must try that. I have to confess that I miss maple syrup. My wife is from Quebec and her family used to ship us cartons of it in the old pre-LCHF days. Sigh.
Dr Atkins inadvertently and unbeknownst to himself, slipped into this same trap when he built his LCHF theory into what later became a massive following with global influence and best selling books and world renowned clinic. Later still, becoming demonstrably deflated and defeated and unheralded and unaccepted theory, by both masses and modern science.
It’s not far from that today.
He learned early on in his studies that NO CAFFEINE and NO ALCOHOL, in all forms…
NO CAFFEINE and NO ALCOHOL, meant somewhere between very few, and NO clients or participants at all.
Zero.
None.
Everybody consumed one or the other or both, most daily.
I have heard of a few religious cults that favor neither.
You are the enemy if you speak out against alcohol and or, caffeine.
Dr Atkins no doubt favored and used these same substances himself.
Total failure would have been at hand, plus he didn’t believe.
Dr Atkins, unheard of.
Why?
Because speaking out against these potent everyday drugs that every single person in america and most of the rest of the world, are inadvertently addicted too without knowing it, would mean rejection of everything he said and demonstrated and stood for.
People loved these drugs and see them as harmless, unless over indulged in.
A huge portion of our population remain comfortably addicted and see nothing wrong with this today.
Dr Atkins built caffeine and alcohol into his platform.
In sophistication and moderation of course.
He had no choice.
His numbers swelled.
Success, his.
Had he not he would have faded into the sunset before he ever got started.
Unheard and unknown.
Take away the primates processed sugar, maybe, — Take away the primates wheat, maybe, — take away the primates vegetable starches, yes, — take away his lentils and most of his fruit, yes.
Take away his caffeine and alcohol and you will have a rebellion on your hands.
Never!
That’s why Jimmy Moore has taken the “find out what works for you and stick to it” “middle of the road” attitude.
Everybody is included in this audience.
His cash cow and he knows it.
True health be damned!
Or is it?
Am I just an eccentric, exaggerated, nut case.
Off on a tangent?
Or,is this a “big picture”, “little picture” thing.
We are built, and it is our nature to see and live in what is around us.
We are this person and we learn and participate and live accordingly.
Mostly favorably and enjoyably unless in adverse conditions or times.
We are who we are.
We think the way we think.
The fact that our perceptions and feelings and senses and thought processes are profoundly effected by these and other stimulant drugs, escapes us.
We haven’t a clue.
TB
While the jury may still be out on the danger of artificial sweeteners I find they cause sleeplessness and cannot tolerate them at all, both my children are the same and we are careful to avoid them.
Like Murray Braithwaite however we have so little sweetness in our diet that your recipes that use chocolate flavouring and sweeteners are acceptably sweet with just the chocolate flavouring.
Our whole family now has sardines for breakfast most mornings (the kids have theirs with some tomato purée or pesto flavouring) and we do not even bother to do substitutes for the forbidden foods on the whole, with a couple of notable exceptions.
Meatzza instead of Pizza was popular for a while – more for the comedic play on words than the flavour or consistency and the current pasta treat is lasagne but without the pasta sheets, just ground beef cooked with onions garlic and tomato purée then grilled cheese and onion on top and served with a green salad, easy to cook and the kids love it.
Chips – we use cheese instead of potato, either Tasty cheddar with onion on top or Parmesan cut into thin squares and cooked under a grill or in the oven on non stick paper, again simple and delicious and low carb!
Our kids have avoided sugar and carbs except for a small amount on birthdays or Christmas and have Nil tooth decay, plenty of energy, and are perfect height for weight.
On the topic of flavouring in cream sometimes we add a little vanilla essence which has a very small amount of sugar in it and for us it makes the cream sweet, but then plain cream tastes sweet as well now………..
Of course if you really want to improve the flavour of food you don’t need to add sweeteners – just wait until you are hungry.
I find a day a week of eating little or no food and any food tastes amazing……..