Some of the studies linking sweeteners to obesity were done very poorly, much like the research linking decaf coffee to heart disease. The study found people who drank decaf were more likely to have heart disease and the more decaf a person drank, and the longer they had been drinking decaf, the worse the heart disease.
Well, duh. People who choose decaf tend to be those who have or are at risk for heart disease, and heart disease tends to be a progressive disease. It gets worse over time.
The same may be said for many forms of obesity. Young fat people often become fatter old people. Dieting is also correlationally linked to weight gain in the long term. Is it because dieting causes weight gain directly, or because we're not taught to diet effectively.
Also many people assume that they're "saving" more calories than they really are when they eat reduced calorie and reduced fat products. If you decide you can have an extra Whopper because you're having a diet soda, you're going to gain weight (because you're replacinge the 300 calorie soda with an 800 calorie sandwich).
If you're a calorie counter, or finding another method of portion control, you can't fall victim to this "bad math."
There is some persuasive evidence against some sweeteners, but there's also a lot of superstition, urban legend, rumor, lies and bad science.
My favorite is that aspartame breaks down into methanol and formaldehyde. Technically true, but this is actually a very normal digestive occurrence as many natural and healthy foods break down into far more methane and formaldehyde than aspartame, yet we don't hear people warning about these foods (mostly because if you avoided them all, you'd have nothing to eat).
So far, the most compelling argument against aspartame I've found is that it contributes to folic acid depletion (which can cause neurological birth deffects and certain types of noncancerous growths or tumors). So if you're not eating lots of fruits and vegetables (and many people don't), you're at greater risk and aspartame only increases that risk.
Folate deficiency during the first trimester of pregnancy is the leading cause of spina bifida and other neural tube defects, (and this has been true long before aspartame was invented). This is why doctors often put women patients on prenatal vitamins when they are trying to conceive (because the most damage is done by folate deficiency before the woman even knows she is pregnant). Aspartame would worsen the situation if a pregnant woman were folate deficient AND using aspartame
I am perimenopausal and on birth control, so I'm not worried about aspartame or stevia's links with birth defects.
I do use aspartame (less often than I used to), so I take a folic acid supplement even though I eat a large amount of fruits and vegetables - more as "insurance" than necessity.
Personally, I suspect that the main reason IP forbids aspartame is marketing. Aspartame has a very bad reputation (only some of it earned). Not only does banning it reassure potential clients, it elevates and reinforces the prestige and image of Ideal Protein products. It also partially justifies the higher prices of IP products over brands that do use aspartame because the sweeteners IP does use are costlier than aspartame.
I am not saying aspartame has no ill effects, but the hype is far worse than what was been proven so far. There are many "healthy" foods that pose greater risks, but most people are unaware because we're not accustomed to thinking of healthy, natural foods that way.
With obesity becoming a national health crisis, nutrition education may be every bit as important as reading, writing, math, science, history, social studies, and sex ed combined.
|
