Artificial Eats Part I: Artificial Sweetener Basics
Kicking off a deep dive into artificial and natural sweeteners
Successful dieting ultimately comes down to quenching two desires: eating “healthier” (however you choose to define this) and enjoying the foods you eat. If we accept that maintaining a caloric intake that permits a healthy body weight and body composition (body fat %) is a component of the former desire, one aspect of this battle translates into getting the most taste and nutrients for the least calories. In recent years, whether it be Coke Zero or alternative coffee sweeteners, non-nutritive sugar substitutes – sweet compounds contributing zero or close to zero calories when consumed – have become popular options for solving the previously mentioned calorie vs. craving conundrum. Though, in theory, they may provide a route to sustainably reducing caloric intake, the question remains: how are these compounds, like aspartame, sucralose, stevia, and allulose, impacting our risks of cardiovascular disease, cancer, and metabolic dysfunction, as well as our endocrinology, weight management, and other health concerns in the long run? We’ll explore questions like these, along with the details and nuances of artificial and natural sweeteners as a whole, throughout this Alternative Eats Series.
Friendly Disclaimer: I am not a doctor, and none of the information below is medical advice in any way, shape, or form. You are responsible for conducting your own research, consulting your medical professionals, and making your own decisions.
Modern industrialization of the food market has sabotaged our endeavors to manage caloric intake, in that it has birthed hyper-palatable, calorie-dense, and relatively unsatiating processed foods all around us; interestingly, it has also added potentially potent tools to our dieting repertoire in the form of artificial and natural sweeteners. Tactically, these molecules pose great upsides in the struggle between managing calorie consumption and craving satisfaction, as they are both palatable and virtually calorically bereft. But, since their explosion in the market in the past couple of decades, these sweeteners’ strategic value – their long-term impacts on our health – has come into question. Before we dive into the nuances of their effects, let’s cover these compounds’ foundational features and distinctions.
Firstly, I separate non-nutritive sweeteners into two main categories: chemically synthesized artificial sweeteners, and natural sweeteners that we gather from plants. (I) Sugar alcohols comprise a third, hybrid category, consisting of naturally occurring compounds that are also commonly synthesized. (II) Check out the list below for common examples within each of these categories.
Artificial: aspartame, saccharin, sucralose, acesulfame potassium (Ace-K)
Natural: monk fruit extract, stevia, allulose
Sugar alcohols: xylitol, erythritol, sorbitol
These compounds can provide potent flavor while delivering zero or near-zero calories in three ways. First, many of them are so vastly sweeter than sucrose – table sugar – that the amounts we need to achieve our desired sweetness are so minuscule that they carry nearly zero calories. (II, III, IV, V, IX, XXXV) For example, aspartame, found in Coke Zero, is 200 times sweeter than sucrose, meaning that 0.01 tablespoons of aspartame provides the same degree of sweetness as 2 tablespoons of table sugar. (III, XXXV) If you do the math based on these numbers, you’ll see how replacing all 39 grams of added sugar in a 12 oz Coca-Cola Original with the sweetness equivalent of aspartame gets you to ~0.8 calories per 12 oz can of Coke Zero. (IV, VII, VIII) In fact, artificial sweeteners with dramatically large magnitudes of sweetness are used in such small quantities that they are typically packeted with bulking agents, like maltodextrin, to facilitate their use.
Another reason some of these compounds carry little to no caloric content is that humans excrete them in urine without metabolizing them into energy. (I, VI, IX, XXXV) For example, ~85% of saccharin – the artificial sweetener used in Sweet’N Low – is absorbed in the small intestine then excreted un-metabolized in urine, with the remaining ~15% being excreted in feces. (I, XXXV)
The final explanation for artificial and natural sweeteners’ lack of caloric content is that some of them pass through our digestive tracts mostly unabsorbed. For example, the majority of consumed sucralose – the artificial sweetener found in Splenda – traverses our digestive tract unabsorbed and is excreted in our feces. (I, X, XXXV)
Each of these compounds bears its zero-calorie feature via one or multiple of these traits, making them attractive substitutes for higher calorie sweeteners – like sucrose, high-fructose corn syrup, and maple syrup – for individuals seeking sweet satisfaction without sacrificing their caloric intake goals. But, does reducing calories through targeting our sweet teeth cravings actually lead to overall caloric reduction in our diets? The math seems to make this tactic efficacious at face-value, but is using zero-calorie sweeteners effective – does it work in practice for losing or managing weight? And, what are the health trade-offs? We’ll turn to these questions moving forward in the Alternative Eats Series.