https://www.ksl.com/article/5064502...ization-advises

This was all over the news yesterday, and many of the articles repeated the warnings about Erythritol and heart disease that came out in February. This warning included all the “natural” sweeteners like stevia and monk fruit as not helpful for weight loss, and it did review 283 studies (some RCTS, some observational).

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/15/heal...deline-wellness

https://www.who.int/news/item/15-05...eased-guideline

Sugar isn't helpful for weight loss either.

The thing is this: How do I know if this is legitimate or something sponsored by Big Sugar or Big Fruit? Or Big something else?

Really, it's difficult to tell.

They didn't refer to a peer-reviewed, double-blind test published in a respectable peer-reviewed journal.

They are saying to eat natural sugar from fruit and others. Stevia is naturally sweet but they include that in the 'don't eat' category. Sounds like this report may be sponsored by the fruit industry.

I don't think we are supposed to eat fruit all year.

In prehistoric times, the fruit ripened before the starvation season (winter in temperate zones and the dry season in the tropics). This allows mammals to carb up and get fat, so they can depend on their body fat to help them make it through the starvation season.

We no longer have a starvation season as we import and preserve food, and we have fruit all year. Seems to me that's not we evolved to east.

I've been using Stevia for decades and I lost over 60 pounds and kept it off. I put it in coffee and tea daily.

I sometimes add a little Splenda or a sugar alcohol to things, but that is in moderation.

I go to the doctor twice a year and he can't find anything wrong with me. He says "I'm an easy patient." I'm on zero medications and that's rare for someone 76 years old. I don't catch colds or the flu, and the doc says my circulatory system is like a healthy 50 year old person.

So obviously, the non-sugar sweeteners haven't affected me (yet).

But I suppose I could be different. Not everyone who smokes gets cancer.

If they don't explain the study, I immediately become skeptical. That doesn't mean disbelief, just question and think about it.

YMMV

WHO already issued guidance to reduce sugar back in 2015.

“this recommendation is not meant to comment on safety of consumption,” Branca said. “What this guideline says is that if we’re looking for reduction of obesity, weight control or risk of noncommunicable diseases, that is unfortunately something science been unable to demonstrate,” he said. “It’s not going to produce the positive health effects that some people might be looking for.”

So this guideline was to update, still limited sugar but substituting AS may not result in weight loss. 283 studies were included in the review. Both randomized controlled trials, considered the gold standard of research, and observational studies were included.

I have seen family members that think a big mac meal with a "diet coke" eliminates the sugar. 😁

ROFL

Yup, white bread is not sugar. ( Sarcasm) 🙄

Imho its a confusion between "causation" and "correlation ".

My concern about AS is how it affects the gut biome. This could be the basis for altered health. Our foods feed the gut bacteria and those in turn send signals thu the body , per current theories.

Today's WSJ:

America Is Binging on Snacks, and Food Companies Are Eating It Up
The ‘snack-ification’ of U.S. diets has cookie and candy giants drooling

U.S. consumers are gorging on snacks, fueling boom times for cookie and candy giants while other packaged-food companies vie for bigger shares of the snack aisle.

Nearly half of U.S. consumers are eating three or more snacks a day, up 8% in the past two years, according to Circana Group, a market-research firm. U.S. snack sales rose to $181 billion last year, up 11% from the year prior, the firm said.

That has translated into big business for companies such as Hershey and Mondelez International, which make products from Oreos cookies to Ritz crackers and SkinnyPop popcorn.

Between fiscal 2019 and 2022, Hershey’s sales grew 30% while Mondelez’s rose 22%, outpacing other major food companies.

“Snacking is where the consumer is going,” said Dan O’Leary, chief growth officer at Hostess, which has expanded its lineup of sweet snacks since the maker of Twinkies was bought out of liquidation a decade ago.

Amber Murayi, Hershey’s vice president of strategy, said that while snacking has long been part of U.S. consumers’ lives, the pandemic drove a significant increase. It spurred demand for foods such as popcorn and candy, which people have continued eating during family movie nights or other group activities, she said.

Hershey since 2017 has spent billions of dollars buying up brands such as SkinnyPop and Pirate’s Booty to grow its lineup of salty snacks. Last month, the candy maker said it would acquire two manufacturing plants primarily for SkinnyPop popcorn, as it builds a new facility to produce ingredients for chocolates.

Zoë VanHoose, who credentials doctors at a children’s hospital in Cincinnati, Ohio, said a jam-packed schedule has led her to snack more in the past five to six years. Rather than eating three square meals, she said she nibbles crackers or carrots and celery throughout the day. On Fridays, she treats herself to Cheetos.

Kroger, the biggest U.S. grocery-store operator by sales, is selling more products catering to snackers, such as boxes with 24 or 36 smaller snack bags inside, said Chief Executive Rodney McMullen. Mondelez CEO Dirk Van de Put said that snacking has generally become more acceptable. “Indulgence will be big no matter what,” he said.

As food prices soar and consumers increasingly look for cheaper alternatives to name-brand products, snack makers have been insulated because they tend to face less competition from lower-priced store brands, said Bernstein analyst Alexia Howard. Often consumers will stick with their chosen brands of chocolate and other snack foods even when prices increase, Ms. Howard said.

Last month, both Hershey and Mondelez raised their sales and profit growth forecasts for the year following double-digit sales increases in the companies’ latest quarters. Shares of Hershey and Mondelez are up about 21% and 18% year to date, respectively, surpassing the S&P food and beverage index’s increase of roughly 4%.

Hostess last week reaffirmed its guidance for sales growth of 4% to 6% in 2023, following a 50% increase in revenues between 2019 and 2022. The company’s shares are up about 18% year to date.

Nick Graham, global head of insights and analytics for Mondelez, said millennials and Gen Z consumers, generally in their teens to early 40s, on average eat about 10% more snacks daily compared with other generations, partly due to what he said were their busier lifestyles.

“Millennials took something that had a negative connotation with older generations—parents would tell you ‘don’t snack and spoil the meal’—and turned snacks into the entire meal itself,” said Andrea Hernández, author of Snaxshot, an online newsletter focused on food and beverage trends.

The rise of videogaming has boosted snack consumption, according to Sally Lyons Wyatt, executive vice president of Circana’s client insights division. U.S. snack sales will likely grow between 7% and 9.5% in 2023, compared with 5.5% growth for all food and beverage, Circana estimates………it continues but is too depressing.

The Top Selling Snacks in the US by dollar sales are Potato Chips, $10.5 Billion and #2 Tortilla Chips, $8 Billion.

One factor in the Satiety Index is DEHYDRATION, although the PE of pork rinds looks good, its satiety is non-existent. Pork rinds are just like potato and tortilla chips. Same with the hedonic factor, artificial sweeteners are no better than sugar.

Whatever WHO writes will fall on deaf ears as Americans eat More Snacks.

Love the job title, and I bet he lives up to it. Hostess, making people grow in the worst ways . . .

I'm just going to add that from my observations, Millennials are far more into snack foods, convenience foods, mobile food ordering, etc.

I'm also going to add I don't agree with the raging against sweeteners. You don't want to sweeten fat - keto or diet junk foods. Been there, done that, does not work and encourages overeating. Sweetener in coffee - whatever, not harmful, but if it triggers you, yeah, don't use.

There was a mid-1970s documentary about developing irresistable salty snacks in the UK, shown on PBS. It had food engineers just out of university in their too-short rusty orange bell bottoms & goofy sideburns playing around with different flavourings to make the perfect snack. It shocked me in the 70s as being so blatant to only want to make money, to hell with health, finding a combination that would make people overeat 2-3X more. And that was just the beginning.

It's a disinformation technique. No one seems to know what to actually eat because showing a steak dinner, which includes salad and is more than two thirds plant when you add the dessert, is apparently forbidden to even show, much less eat, in social media. The offender will get death threats from vegans.

As a cat blogger, I get death threats from vegans when I write about the cat's species-specific diet. I don't think they have the energy to actually carry it out, though

I've seen TikToks of people talking about eating healthy while breakfasting on a box of vegan donuts while drinking their giant sugar drink with some coffee in it and I think they believe it.

Who wouldn't want to believe it? It's obviously not working, though.

Still, it's a great excuse for people who really do "eat like everyone they know" because that was me, and they stayed at a healthy weight while I developed an eating disorder from what the carbs did to my system. I was never free from hunger as long as I ate the "normal" amount of carbs.

If they grew up on snacks, they don't know the first thing about how to eat. We've gotten that "civilized."

I used monkfruit and stevia occasionally. But in 2020, who DIDN'T stress eat in some way? And felt lucky if they didn't do other stress things!

The result is people who clearly have no clue about nutrition. That alone indicts the health authorities, who stepped wrong with the pyramid. It's obvious now, and people will ignore health advice more, which is also a disaster if we care about public health.

Fortunately, I've also seen the concepts of bio-available and satiation take hold, and that's good stuff.

I worked as a musician on cruise ships for 3 years.

I can't count how many people I saw go through the buffet, pile pie on top of cake with cookies on the side and put a sugar substitute in their coffee. I always found that amusing.

Between sugar and some substitutes like Stevia, I'd guess Stevia is much better for you - or less bad for you - whichever way you look at it.

I suppose that there is a point where even the safest sweetener becomes detrimental, after all, you can drink water to the point where it harms you.

I'm no doctor, nor am I a nutritionist, but IMO if you are already on a low carb diet, and want to put a little stevia in your coffee or tea, most people are not going to be treading on dangerous ground.

But who am I but a guy who has been on it for years and find it working with no ill results.

Of course, if there was one diet best for everybody, there would only need to be one diet book.

Bob

For me, it was the people in the deli who ordered a slice of NY cheesecake and a Tab. Riiiiiiight.

Though I think one great rule for anyone to start with is to drink only water. The rivers of super-sweet liquids, hot and cold and in giant containers, is probably a huge part of how people helplessly overeat. That's where I see the biggest torrent of artificial sweetener going into people's bodies.

Just put your blood on a glucose drip, there you go!

I drink mostly water followed by coffee and tea plus an occasional glass of red wine. That's it.

I do use Stevia in my coffee and tea, and I am aware that it provides no nutritional value, but that's not why I add it. It makes those beverages taste better to me.

Is it harming me? I haven't read anything that has convinced me that Stevia is detrimental to my health, including the article referenced above.

Do a double-blind experiment, with people following the same diet with the exception of stevia, and nothing but stevia, and test the results. Of course that's hard to do.

Do something else that will convince me, and I might stop using it.

In the meantime I'll continue my low-carb, high fat, moderate protein, omnivore diet. I'm almost 77 with zero prescription medications, so I'm good. I don't know if that will work for anyone else in particular, but it works for me.

Bob