Scientists have long proven that sugar is really a "white death".
But many continue to think that this is a joke.
However, more and more people are switching to sugar substitutes.
And among them there are many fans of healthy lifestyles
What you need to know about sugar substitutes
October 19, 2021
For one-two-three pay!
However, at the same time, people's ideas about sweeteners are very confusing,
and they choose them by indigity, and not relying on knowledge.
It is not very difficult to understand them.
All of them are
divided into the following groups: The first group. It includes the so-called sweet alcohols: xylitol, sorbitol, erythritol, maltite, lactite, isomaltite. Despite the fact that these are alcohols, you will not become drunk from them, but an incident can happen to them: they have a strong laxative effect. Therefore, xylitol and sorbitol, used more often than others, are recommended to be consumed in a volume of no more than 30 g per day. But for some people, 10 g of such sugar substitutes is enough to feel this effect. With many, this happens after they eat ice cream, or a few candies, or chew gum actively - all this can contain a decent dose of such sugar substitutes.
Otherwise, they are quite safe and even useful for teeth. But to reduce calorie content, this goal is often pursued by adherents of healthy lifestyles, it is unlikely to be suitable. The fact is that the energy value of xylitol and sorbitol ranges from 2.4 to 4 calories per gram. And this means that it is close to sugar - 1 g contains 4 calories. The degree of sweetness of them is also not much different from sugar. For comparison, all sweeteners on this indicator are compared with sugar, and its sweetness is taken as one (see table). The sweetness of xylitol is the same - 1, and sorbitol is almost two times less. Therefore, to replace sugar and get the same sweet taste, it needs almost 2 times more. And calories at the same time will have to eat about the same as in the composition of sugar. So draw your own conclusions.
The second group. It includes aspartame, saccharin, cyclamate, acesulfame K, sucralose and some other substances. Their main difference is that they are very sweet, almost all sweeter than sugar by 100 or more times. This means that they can be consumed in very small quantities. The second difference is that they have almost no calories. This seems like a big plus, but it also creates problems. Why? These are all synthetic substances, and they made the most noise.
For example, cyclamate, which is widely used in the world and in our country, has long been banned in the United States because of suspicion of carcinogenicity.
And saccharin, which is exactly under the same suspicion, was not banned, but manufacturers were obliged to indicate on the packages that it can cause cancer in animals. In an experiment on rats, its carcinogenic effect in the development of bladder cancer was confirmed. But for this purpose, such a high concentration of saccharin in the urine was created, which is unattainable in humans. Firstly, because we can never eat as much saccharin as we fed it to rats, and secondly, unlike humans, rats have the ability to accumulate a very large amount of it in the urine. Experts agree that in human concentrations saccharin is safe. And only recently it was fully restored in rights, even in the United States abolished the requirement to mention its carcinogenicity on the packaging.
A special situation with aspartame. He was investigated for safety more thoroughly than others, but he was also accused of carcinogenicity. Official medicine rejects this suspicion, arguing that there is nothing unnatural for the body in it. The aspartame molecule consists of asparagine and phenylalanine (these amino acids occur naturally) combined with methanol. The latter is harmful to humans, but its concentration in aspartame is negligible, much more methanol we get with fruits and juices. Asparagine and phenylalanine we absorb with meat, grain, dairy products.
Acesulfame K refers to the "young" sweeteners. It was created in 1967 in Germany and has passed serious safety tests. It is registered in more than 40 countries. Even younger than sucralose, it was learned to make from ordinary sugar in 1976, but began to be used much later: in the late 1990s. In general, these sweeteners showed good safety, although they also could not avoid scandals.
The third group. Includes natural compounds released from plants. First of all, these are steviosides derived from stevia. They differ in the degree of purification and sweeter than sugar by 250-480 times. Their caloric content is almost zero. Steviosides are considered safe and beneficial, but they have an Achilles heel: a taste that distinguishes them from sugar. However, almost all sugar substitutes are known for this. It is believed that most of all it tastes similar to sucralose and a rare natural extract of monastic fruit, or Buddha fruit.
Table. Sweetness of sweeteners in comparison with sucrose
Expert opinion
Psychoendocrinologist, president of the Russian Diabetes Association Mikhail
Bogomolov: - If we talk about patients with diabetes, then there is nothing more dangerous for them than a long increase in blood sugar. Because of this, they have such a high mortality rate from heart and vascular diseases. Ultimately, all problems in diabetes - damage to the heart, brain, limbs, kidneys, eyes - are associated with changes in the vessels caused by hyperglycemia (increased blood glucose). Therefore, if they can not give up sweets, then replacing sugar with sweeteners will only benefit: the level of glucose in the blood will be less.
If we talk about healthy people, then we need to recall the recommendations of the World Health Organization (WHO) of March 2015 on sugar. They advise taking no more than 25 grams of added sugar per day. This is a small dose, and therefore many of this amount is not enough. But limiting sugar intake is very important, as it actually increases the risks of cardiovascular disease, weight gain and the development of metabolic syndrome (it includes obesity, type 2 diabetes, hypertension and coronary heart disease). Since mortality from these diseases is very high, those who can not stay within the recommended daily serving of sugar, its substitutes are not contraindicated.
Choosing a particular sweetener is a complex
question. First, the vast majority of manufactured goods use mainly four sugar substitutes: saccharin, cyclamate, acesulfame and aspartame (to a much lesser extent - steviosides). The rest are rarely used, as they are very expensive and significantly increase the price of the product. Therefore, their choice is limited. For self-use of the house there is a choice, but also strongly depends on the price. The most optimal to me seem to be steviosides. They come in several types, but the best qualities of rebaudioside A. It is produced in different countries and under different brand names. But it's far from the cheapest.
You need to understand that our craving for sugar and sweets is psychological. She is brought up from childhood. We do not need sugar in such quantities. You can do without it at all, getting glucose and other sugars from hard-to-digest carbohydrates. And this is the most optimal and healthy approach. There are such people, but most are victims of improper upbringing. Since childhood, they were accustomed to sugar, buying something sweet as a reward or encouragement. As a result, sweets they began to associate with joy, pleasure, happiness. And the lack of such a taste causes discomfort. I advise parents never to reward children with sweets, this will help them grow up indifferent to this taste.
