Your guide to the sugary axis of evil.

March 11, 2011 § 19 Comments

Well hello there!

Hope you’re enjoying this magnificent Friday! It’s my one day off from both college & work, so I am smushing as much as humanly possible into the waking hours. It’s glorious to have a whole day to fawn over food, stare at the sea and open random chapters in my nutrition textbook that look vaguely interesting. Not exactly efficient study, but the book and my eyes are simultaneously open so that’s a win, right?

You know what else fat-ass nutrition books are good for?

Strength training!

I am officially too cheap to fork out my spare change for a gym visit, so I’ve taken to creative strength-training in the comfort of my lounge room! Nothing will ever replace a gym sesh, and I dearly miss sweating, grimacing and grunting in front of an audience of buffcore dudes… However textbook squats, armchair leg-curls (releasing & retracting the recliner foot-rest) and early morning sit-ups (hauling ass out of bed) are meeting my extensive body-building needs nicely.

Moving on from my rippling biceps, I thought i’d stun two birds with one stone (no animals were killed in the making of this cliché) and write a post on sugars and artificial sweeteners that may also help me cement it in my tiny walnut brain!

Y’all already know my opinion on artificial anything. If it’s powdered, processed or packaged, it probably won’t vibe with your insides. Your body doesn’t recognise number 950 or colour 245 or white powdery flour, so it will either react, store it in some unpleasant way or alter its physiological function to cope.

Real food

Often, artificial sweeteners cause the body to respond in ways that oppose our original intention. You may buy a diet soda with zero sugar to save on calories, but because your body is receiving a substance without an energy pay-off you may end up eating more later to ‘compensate’. Not to mention many artificial sweeteners have a questionable safety status. If something is a potential neurotoxin and causes rats to grow ears on their toes, I sure as hell don’t want anything to do with it. No thank you, huge-junk-food-corporations-who-are-funding-their-own-scientific-studies. No. Thank. You.

Axis of evil board of directors:

  • Aspartame (number 951)

Aspartame is made through the combination of two amino acids, Phenylalanine and Aspartic acid, with methanol. It is commonly used to sweeten drinks, desserts, chewing gum, cookies and bakery goods. Nutra-Sweet and Equal are brand names for Aspartame. It has around 4kcal/g which is the same as sucrose, however it is 180-200 sweeter and thus less needs to be used. From the website of Dr. Mercola, “Aspartame accounts for over 75 percent of the adverse reactions to food additives reported to the FDA. Many of these reactions are very serious including seizures and death.” Mmmmm tasty. People with PKU (a genetic disorder in which individuals cannot metabolise Phenylalanine) must also avoid this sweetener, and the rest of us would be wise to as well. Studies have linked it’s consumption even at ‘safe intakes’ to an increase in incidence in lymphomas and leukaemias in rats, not to mention the fact that when combined in the small intestine with the enzyme chymotrypsin, methanol is released and breaks down into formaldehyde (that’s a neurotoxin FYI!). I could go on, but I think you’re getting the idea.

More real food!

  • Acesulphame-K (number 950)

Also known as Sweet ‘n Safe (how benign) and is 150-200 times sweeter than sugar. It is usually combined with Aspartame to give a more palatable flavour and contributes no calories as it is not digested by the body. It the U.S, it is approved for use in yoghurts, chewing gums, gelatins, drink mixers, puddings, baked goods, candy, lozengers etc. Concerns have been raised about it’s status as a possible carcinogen (linked with lung and breast cancer especially) and negative effects on cholesterol levels. This was a nice little tid-bit of information I found; “To add to the supposed Acesulfame potassium dangers, its manufacture consists of several substances and one of them is Methylene chloride. This very agent is employed in industries as paint stripper and as a de-greaser or propellant agent.” Doesn’t that just make you want to throw back a cold diet bevvo?

  • Cyclamate (number 952)

It is 30-50 times sweeter than sugar, but is often used synergistically with other sweeteners for a more appealing flavour. Regularly used in cordials and soft-drinks, it is currently banned for use in the US (but 55 other countries still approve it as an additive). Studies linked it’s consumption to increased risk of bladder cancer in rats, however an appeal has been lodged by manufacturers to lift the ban as they have been unable to reproduce the negative effects in subsequent trials. Funny that.

My kinda schweet

  • Saccharin (number 954)

Saccharin, also known as Sweet and Low, is the oldest alternative sweetener and is approximately 300 times sweeter than sucrose. It is made from crude oil (are you drooling?) and has similar properties and effects to Cyclamate (which is banned, remember?). Studies have also linked it to an increased risk of bladder cancer, yet they were later labeled ‘weak’ and ‘inconclusive’. Inconclusive does not buy my trust, paid-off pseudo-scientists! It is generally used as a table-top sweetener as is becomes bitter through heating.

  • Sucralose (number 955)

Sucralose is what we know as Splenda, and is over 600 times sweeter than sucrose! You’ll find it in all the usual suspects; drinks, chewing gum, jams, frozen dairy desserts, sauces and syrups. It is at least based upon a recognisable substance (sugar which has been chlorinated) however it has possible implications for the thymus and many believe it has not been adequately researched as it is seen as more ‘natural’. I found this about it’s absorption in the body; “The absorbed sucralose has been found to concentrate in the liver, kidney, and gastrointestinal tract. According to The Sucralose Toxicity Information Center, sucralose is broken down “into small amounts of 1,6-dichlorofructose, a chemical which has not been adequately tested in humans.” A big fat hmmmmm.


I’m going to leave it at that today, as these are the main baddies in that big mouth-puckeringly sweet charade. That, and my font has gone bananas and I can’t fix it. Yikes.

I’d be interested to hear how many people knew about these sweeteners and their implications, as I sure as hell didn’t realise the extent of their collective eeeevil before studying it in nutrition.

Au revoir for now!

§ 19 Responses to Your guide to the sugary axis of evil.

  • Jacci says:

    The scary thing is that the Dietician employed by my work brushes all of this aside with a wave of the hand and a cool “Our food safety authority FSANZ has declared it safe, so it is safe”

    hmmm

    This is also the same person who advocates eating wonder white bread due to the “added fibre” but then poo-poos that dark chocolate is good for you theory as “the best marketing ploy by chocolate companies ever”

    • Katey @ Bonne Santé says:

      Oh god, that’s pretty awful.
      Lucky you’re an enlightened dietician/trainer/health-professional!
      Pretty sure one of my favourite quotes from David Wolfe was when he was talking about making ‘upgrades’ in our diets – ie. soda to herbal tea, processed ‘chocolate’ to raw cacao…and white bread? He practically yelled – ANYTHING is better than white bread! Hear, hear!

  • Talitha says:

    Thanks for this :) I knew that aspartame was only passed the FDA due to corruption but didn’t know about the rest! Anything that takes 150 years to pass the test..and the only few very conspicuous means has got to be bad..and then as soon as America starts selling something the whole world ends up eating it in time.

    • Katey @ Bonne Santé says:

      Thanks Talitha!
      Unfortunately it’s pretty shameful what companies will do to make a buck – including selling products that have not been conclusively tested and deemed safe!
      America dictates a lot of trends, that’s for sure.

  • Steve says:

    What about a product like Stevia? From what I know it’s not as bad as the rest out there… plus it’d be a shame for something with such an awesome, and aesthetically pleasing name to be bad…
    – Steve

    • Katey @ Bonne Santé says:

      Hey Steve!
      Yes, STEVia is pretty awesome in my books! It’s from a herb, so even better if you can grow it in your yard and use the leaves to sweeten things! Still processed, but no impact on blood sugar and as close to natural as they come. Love me a bit of stevia. Boring name though, right?!

  • Alyssa says:

    Stevia does really weird things to my belly. Makes my belly go hard as a rock. :(

    • Katey @ Bonne Santé says:

      Really! That’s v. unusual. But again, it is still a processed form of a plant, so perhaps doesn’t gel with you :(

  • Leia says:

    This was an excellent article! I’m sharing it on my Facebook page. I’ve always avoided artificial sweeteners and I’m so glad that I do!

  • Leia says:

    Oh, and I’m happy to hear that Stevia is okay! We’re trying to grow some in our backyard :D

    • Katey @ Bonne Santé says:

      Hey Leia! Thanks for the comment.
      How nice to grow it in your yard – let us know how it turns out!

  • the neurotic yogini says:

    scary stuff. i swear this is just another one the government’s ways of population control.. i, personally, try not to eat anything i cannot pronounce. :)

    • Katey @ Bonne Santé says:

      Population control indeed…fluoride in the water anyone?! I like your can’t-say-won’t-eat philosophy!

  • Sharon Osborne says:

    Loved this article!
    What a coinsidence that the house where you lived, is now a Health Food shop :) The safe, which once bulged with money, is now chockers with nuts, dried fruits and all kinds of fantastic REAL food…maybe your healthy influence is stronger than you thought! ;)

    • Katey @ Bonne Santé says:

      Sharon! Thanks for commenting!
      I forgot about the old bank residence – definitely some magical universal interconnectedness…or just plain coincidence! I like to think it’s the former :D

  • Katey, awesome post! We need more anti-evilsweet warriors out there, you rock! Ugh, I’ve had similarly bad experiences with dietitians….. one prescribed me lunches of lean cuisines and diet coke. I only wish I was joking. Hey, do you have that baby pocket book of additives?
    Good luck with the font!
    PS just staring down my anatomy and nutrition hugeass textbooks from the other side of the room, perhaps they can help me get some killer biceps..

    • Katey @ Bonne Santé says:

      Oooh pocket book of additives you say? No! I’ll have to add it to my mile-long nerdy literature wish list!
      Can’t believe the lean cuisine & diet coke. Crriiiiiinnnnngggge!

  • Such a good post, these guys be so nasty and not to mention what they can also do to your insulin sensitivity … P.S. Love the use of my favourite word under picture #4

    • Katey @ Bonne Santé says:

      Cheers Christian!
      Knew you’d approve of the schweeeet reference. You’ll have to educate me about the in-depth insulin sensitivity issues.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading Your guide to the sugary axis of evil. at Bonne Santé.

meta

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 77 other followers

%d bloggers like this: