Are Sweeteners Making Us Fat?

Americans have quite the sweet tooth. Our annual consumption of sweeteners has climbed sharply since 1980, peaking in the late 1990s. Sweetener intake has dropped a little since then, but it's still high -- about 100 pounds annually per person.

During these same years, many more Americans, particularly children, have become overweight and obese. Added sweeteners may be one of the major reasons.

So what's the best approach? Avoid sugar? Avoid added sweeteners altogether? Stick to artificial ones that don't have calories? At this point, there are no clear answers. The best may be to follow that tired-but-true health-advice cliché: Everything in moderation.

Sucrose and Fructose
The sugars, including honey, maple syrup and corn syrup, as well as table sugar, are carbohydrates, that big, energy-packed group that also includes starches and cellulose. In the world of added sweeteners, they're sometimes referred to as the caloric, or nutritive, sweeteners. Structurally, they can be one of two types:

When you digest sucrose -- whether it's from sugar cane or sugar beets (or, for that matter, maple sap) -- it breaks down into 50 percent glucose and 50 percent fructose. High-fructose corn syrup is also made of glucose and fructose, but the two monosaccharides are simply mixed together, not bonded as a disaccharide. High-fructose corn syrup was first produced in the late 1960s, with the introduction of a new method that changes some of the glucose in corn syrup into fructose. It's available in three grades -- HFCS-42, HFCS-55 and HFCS-90; the numbers indicate the percentage of fructose content.

High-fructose corn syrup is as sweet as sucrose but less expensive, so soft-drink manufacturers switched over to using it in the mid-1980s. Now it has surpassed sucrose as the main added sweetener in the American diet.

Is Fructose to Blame?
Fructose once seemed like one of nutrition's good guys. Despite being among the simplest of simple carbohydrates, it has a very low glycemic index. The glycemic index is a way of measuring how much of an effect a food or drink has on blood sugar levels; low glycemic index foods are generally better for you.

But fructose, at least in large quantities, may have some serious drawbacks. It has a low glycemic index because our metabolisms aren't designed to handle a lot of it at one time. In an article published in 2005 in Nutrition and Metabolism, University of Toronto researchers noted that for thousands of years, human fructose consumption was limited to fresh fruits in season. In the past 100 years or so, there's been a massive increase in our fructose intake, but we haven't gotten any better at metabolizing it.

Glucose, not fructose, is the mainstay of our energy production. Glucose metabolism occurs in cells throughout the body by the complex process of glycolysis and the Krebs cycle, ultimately yielding carbon dioxide and water. By contrast, fructose is metabolized almost exclusively in the liver. It's more likely to result in the creation of fats--in particular, very low-density lipoproteins and triglycerides, both of which increase the risk for heart disease. Moreover, recent work has shown that fructose may have an influence on the "appetite hormones," leptin and ghrelin, and that doesn't help our waistlines. High levels of fructose may lower leptin and fail to depress ghrelin. Those changes would blunt sensations of fullness and could lead to overeating.

Fruit Juice Concentrate: Just Empty Calories
Fruit juices such as apple or white grape juice in concentrated form are widely used sweeteners. They're used to replace fats in low-fat products because they retain water and provide bulk; this improve the appearance and "mouth feel" of the food.

Although they may seem healthier and more natural than high-fructose corn syrup, fruit-juice concentrates also have high levels of fructose. Concentrated apple juice, for example, is 65 percent fructose, higher than the 55 percent fructose content of HFCS-55 that is used in soft drinks. And fruit-juice-concentrate sweeteners don't have the vitamins, minerals, phytochemicals, and fiber of whole fruit. No less than sucrose or high-fructose corn syrup, fruit-juice concentrates are another way that empty calories get into our diets.

Artificial Sweeteners
Artificial sweeteners sing a siren song of calorie-free and, therefore, guilt-free sweetness. The FDA-approved ones include acesulfame K (Sunett), aspartame (NutraSweet, Equal), neotame, saccharin (Sweet 'N Low, others), and sucralose (Splenda). All are intensely sweet. Some, like aspartame, are not completely calorie-free. Each gram has a few of them. But because it's so sweet (160 to 220 times sweeter than sucrose), you need very little, so the calorie count is negligible.

Saccharin goes way back. It was discovered in 1879 through work with coal tar derivatives and was originally derived from toluene, or methyl-benzene. It first became popular during the sugar shortages of World War I. Aspartame, discovered in 1965, is synthesized from the two amino acids, aspartic acid and phenylalanine. Sucralose, approved by the FDA in 1998, is a re-engineered sucrose molecule in which three chlorine atoms replace oxygen-hydrogen units.

There's a cyberspace cottage industry dedicated to condemning the artificial sweeteners, especially aspartame. Some fears are based on animal experiments using doses many times greater than any person would consume. But even some mainstream experts remain wary of artificial sweeteners, partly because of the lack of long-term studies in humans. In 2006, an Italian study generated some legitimate concern when it reported that aspartame increased the risk of cancer. Even though it was only an animal experiment, the study was large and involved fairly realistic doses of the sweetener.

url:

/news/articles/ALT02/06/11/13/ALT02061113-01.html

raw:

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"><html><head><title>Are Sweeteners Making Us Fat? -- ThirdAge</title><meta content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"><meta name="keywords" content="healthy, wellness, ThirdAge"><meta name="description" content="Ever since our annual consumption of sweeteners increased, our weight has skyrocketed right along with it. Coincidence -- or not?"><meta name="language" content="en"><meta http-equiv="content-language" content="en"> <meta name="robots" content="index,follow"><script type="text/javascript" src="/includes/javascript/base2.js"></script><link rel=stylesheet href="/includes/css/seo02.css" TYPE="text/css"></head><div align="center"><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="760" class="bgtablemainborder"><tr><td><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="758" class="bgtablemain"><tr><td colspan="6" align="center"><div style="padding-top: 5px;"></div></td></tr><tr><td colspan="6" height="10"><spacer type=block width=1 height=10></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td></td><td rowspan="2"></td><td rowspan="2" class="bodynews"><div style="padding-top:1px;"></div><p><span class="hednews">Are Sweeteners Making Us Fat?</span><p><table align="right" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="154"> <tr><td width="8"><spacer type="block" width="8" height="1"></td><td width="146"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="146" bgcolor="fbf6e8"><tr bgcolor="#000000"><td width="12" height="1"><img src="/x.gif" width=12 height=1 alt=""></td><td width="129"><img src="/x.gif" width=129 height=1 alt=""></td><td width="5"><img src="/x.gif" width=5 height=1 alt=""></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3" height="50"><img src="/news/articles/images/health/also_hw.gif" border="0" width="146" height="36" alt="Also in This Issue of Health & Wellness"></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td class="smallcopy" align="center">•</td><td class="smallcopy"><b>The French Secret to Fighting Heart Disease </b><br> Red wine has the ability to "cancel out" a fatty diet. <a href="/news/archive/ALT02061113-02.html">go ></a></td><td><spacer type=block width=5 height=1></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3" height="20"><spacer type=block width=1 height=1></td></tr><tr bgcolor="#000000"><td colspan="3" height="1"><spacer type=block width=1 height=1></td></tr></table></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"> </td></tr></table><span class="bodynews"> Americans have quite the sweet tooth. Our annual consumption of sweeteners has climbed sharply since 1980, peaking in the late 1990s. Sweetener intake has dropped a little since then, but it's still high -- about 100 pounds annually per person.<p>During these same years, many more Americans, particularly children, have become overweight and obese. Added sweeteners may be one of the major reasons.<p>So what's the best approach? Avoid sugar? Avoid added sweeteners altogether? Stick to artificial ones that don't have calories? At this point, there are no clear answers. The best may be to follow that tired-but-true health-advice cliché: Everything in moderation.<p><b>Sucrose and Fructose</b><br>The sugars, including honey, maple syrup and corn syrup, as well as table sugar, are carbohydrates, that big, energy-packed group that also includes starches and cellulose. In the world of added sweeteners, they're sometimes referred to as the caloric, or nutritive, sweeteners. Structurally, they can be one of two types:<ul><li> Monosaccharides (simple sugars) -- like fructose or glucose, which is what human beings and most other living things metabolize (burn for energy)<p><li> Disaccharides -- two monosaccharides put together; examples include maltose (two glucose molecules), lactose (galactose and glucose) and sucrose (glucose and fructose)</ul>When you digest sucrose -- whether it's from sugar cane or sugar beets (or, for that matter, maple sap) -- it breaks down into 50 percent glucose and 50 percent fructose. High-fructose corn syrup is also made of glucose and fructose, but the two monosaccharides are simply mixed together, not bonded as a disaccharide. High-fructose corn syrup was first produced in the late 1960s, with the introduction of a new method (enzyme-catalyzed isomerization) that changes some of the glucose in corn syrup into fructose. It's available in three grades -- HFCS-42, HFCS-55 and HFCS-90; the numbers indicate the percentage of fructose content.<p>High-fructose corn syrup is as sweet as sucrose but less expensive, so soft-drink manufacturers switched over to using it in the mid-1980s. Now it has surpassed sucrose as the main added sweetener in the American diet.<p><b>Is Fructose to Blame?</b><br>Fructose once seemed like one of nutrition's good guys. Despite being among the simplest of simple carbohydrates, it has a very low glycemic index. The glycemic index is a way of measuring how much of an effect a food or drink has on blood sugar levels; low glycemic index foods are generally better for you.<p>But fructose, at least in large quantities, may have some serious drawbacks. It has a low glycemic index because our metabolisms aren't designed to handle a lot of it at one time. In an article published in 2005 in Nutrition and Metabolism, University of Toronto (Canada) researchers noted that for thousands of years, human fructose consumption was limited to fresh fruits in season. In the past 100 years or so, there's been a massive increase in our fructose intake, but we haven't gotten any better at metabolizing it.<p>Glucose, not fructose, is the mainstay of our energy production. Glucose metabolism occurs in cells throughout the body by the complex process of glycolysis and the Krebs cycle (the bane of every organic chemistry student's existence), ultimately yielding carbon dioxide and water. By contrast, fructose is metabolized almost exclusively in the liver. It's more likely to result in the creation of fats (lipogenesis): in particular, very low-density lipoproteins and triglycerides, both of which increase the risk for heart disease. Moreover, recent work has shown that fructose may have an influence on the "appetite hormones," leptin and ghrelin, that doesn't bode well for our waistlines. High levels of fructose may lower leptin and fail to depress ghrelin. Those changes would blunt sensations of fullness (satiety) and could lead to overeating.<p><b>Fruit Juice Concentrate: Just Empty Calories</b><br>Fruit juices such as apple or white grape juice in concentrated form are widely used sweeteners. They're "fat mimetics" used to replace fats in low-fat products because they retain water and provide bulk, which improve the appearance and "mouth feel" of the food.<p>Although they may seem healthier and more natural than high-fructose corn syrup, fruit-juice concentrates also have high levels of fructose. Concentrated apple juice, for example, is 65 percent fructose, higher than the 55 percent fructose content of HFCS-55 that is used in soft drinks. And fruit-juice-concentrate sweeteners don't have the vitamins, minerals, phytochemicals, and fiber of whole fruit. No less than sucrose or high-fructose corn syrup, fruit-juice concentrates are another way that empty calories get into our diets.<p><b>Artificial Sweeteners</b><br>Artificial sweeteners sing a siren song of calorie-free and, therefore, guilt-free sweetness. The FDA-approved ones include acesulfame K (Sunett), aspartame (NutraSweet, Equal), neotame, saccharin (Sweet 'N Low, others), and sucralose (Splenda). All are intensely sweet. Some, like aspartame, are not completely calorie-free. Each gram has a few of them. But because it's so sweet (160 to 220 times sweeter than sucrose), you need very little, so the calorie count is negligible.<p>Saccharin goes way back. It was discovered in 1879 through work with coal tar derivatives and was originally derived from toluene, or methyl-benzene. It first became popular during the sugar shortages of World War I. Aspartame, discovered in 1965, is synthesized from the two amino acids, aspartic acid and phenylalanine. Sucralose, approved by the FDA in 1998, is a re-engineered sucrose molecule in which three chlorine atoms replace oxygen-hydrogen units.<p>There's a cyberspace cottage industry dedicated to condemning the artificial sweeteners, especially aspartame. Some fears are based on animal experiments using doses many times greater than any person would consume. But even some mainstream experts remain wary of artificial sweeteners, partly because of the lack of long-term studies in humans. In 2006, an Italian study generated some legitimate concern when it reported that aspartame increased the risk of cancer. Even though it was only an animal experiment, the study was large and involved fairly realistic doses of the sweetener.<p><a href="http://www.thirdage.com/news/articles/ALT02/06/11/13/ALT02061113-01b.html">Next: Sugar alcohols ></a></span><p><br><p><br></td><td rowspan="2"></td><td rowspan="2"><p><br></td><td rowspan="2"> </td></tr><tr valign="top"><td class="bgleftcol"><div style="padding-top: 10px;"></div><p><p align="center"></p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="6" align="center"><div style="padding-top: 10px;"></div></td></tr><tr><td width="134" height="10"><spacer type="block" width="134" height="10"></td><td width="15"><spacer type="block" width="15" height="1"></td><td width="424"><spacer type="block" width="424" height="1"></td><td width="15"><spacer type="block" width="15" height="1"></td><td width="160"><spacer type="block" width="160" height="1"></td><td width="10"><spacer type="block" width="10" height="1"></td></tr></table></td></tr></table><p><br><br></div></body></html>

Are Sweeteners Making Us Fat? - Health