Sweeteners are not an alternative to sugar as healthy as you think | The

Unsweetened sweeteners are not much better than sugar or at least there is no evidence of that. This is the main conclusion of a review of what science knows about these substances. The report, commissioned by the World Health Organization (WHO), found no significant evidence that these non-caloric (and low-calorie) compounds have beneficial effects on health in addition to being safe and effective. a slight weight loss. The study authors and other experts point out that sweet foods and water are the best substitutes for sugar

. The demonization of sugar is accompanied by the deification of unsweetened sweeteners. Sucrose was originally linked to obesity, dental caries, type 2 diabetes, and heart rhythm disorders, among other diseases. Therefore, health authorities recommend reducing their consumption, especially among young and specific risk groups. The withdrawal of sugar gave birth to several artificial and natural sweeteners, such as saccharin, which for decades was a drug for diabetics, aspartame, acesulfame K and stevia (extracts from the plant Stevia rebaudiana ). . All of these substances are between 100 times (Luo Han Guo's plant) and 20,000 times sweeter (advantame, a new high intensity sweetener) than sucrose, according to data from the US FDA. Most have only few or no calories.

These two realities led to a decrease in sugar consumption, while that of unsweetened sweeteners increased. In the United States, for example, the number of people using the latter has increased by 54% since the turn of the century. In the case of children, the percentage has increased by 200%, a figure related to soft drinks. There is, however, no consensus between scientists and doctors about the long-term effects of these alternatives throughout life.

WHO is preparing a guide on sweeteners and, as a starting point, asked a group of scientists to express the problem . The researchers followed publications and scientific studies of the effects on various aspects of the health of all and some of these sweeteners, comparing them to sugar and placebo substances. Work includes those focused on healthy people, adults and children, and those with overweight issues. A total of 56 studies were found and their results and conclusions were published in the journal British Medical Journal .

"There is not enough evidence to definitively evaluate the benefits and, in particular, the potential long-term effects," says Joerg J. Meerpohl, a researcher at the Institute for Evidence University of Freiburg (Germany) and lead author of the study. "There may be a slight effect on weight in the short term, but we do not have high quality data that will confirm it in the long run," he said. "We also have no consistent evidence of significant negative health impacts."

The scientific journal examined impacts on weight, blood sugar, dental health, cardiovascular disease, liver disease and even cancer. He also reviewed studies on the effects on mood, behavior, and eating habits. Although not all studies compare sweeteners with sugar, the supposedly beneficial effects of sweeteners are generally very rare. For example, in weight-focused adult studies, the average loss among those who took sweeteners was not more than 1.3 kg. The most notable effect may be the reduction of blood pressure in overweight adults. Of the dozens of studies involving children, two of them even showed a slight increase in body mbad index in those taking two artificial sweeteners, sucralose and acesulfame. K.

Meerpohl specified that more studies were needed before the WHO publishes its sweetener recommendations, scheduled for the end of the year. About whether they are better than sugar, however, recognizes that it is difficult to answer a question whose response depends on the measured result and the amount of sweetener. And the long-term effect of combinations of two or more sweeteners, a common occurrence in non-alcoholic drinks, for example, is not known to reach and approach the sweet taste characteristic of sugar.

"The results of this study are not surprising and confirm the idea that non-artificial sweeteners are not the magic wand to prevent obesity," said Tom Sanders, professor of nutrition at The King. Sanders, in a statement. "Replacing sugary drinks with artificial sweeteners helps prevent children from gaining weight, but that does not go beyond the ideal alternative, water."

Susan Swithers, a researcher at Purdue University, has studied the relationship between nutrition, metabolism and the brain. "Until now, science shows that sugar substitutes do not help much and that those who consume them in the long run get less healthy results than those who do not consume them." We do not know exactly why this happens, but there may be more reason why sweeteners are not necessarily healthy choices. "

Possible explanations include the alteration of # 39; balance of the gut microbiota, highlighted by some studies.They can also interfere with the signals that link sugary tastes and energy in the brain. "Sweeteners activate the brain differently from sugars," says Swithers, without

"Sweeteners activate the brain differently from sugars," explains Swithers. "The specific mechanisms that produce these changes are not yet well known, but it seems that our brains have different ways to detect if something has a sweet taste and brings energy. "

The International Sweeteners Association, which brings together much of this industry, has responded to the study by highlighting the part that confirms the link between sweeteners and weight loss and the fact that it's a good thing. He is also questioning the fact that the WHO-mandated review excludes some studies on soda and young people showing weight loss and long-term maintenance in young people. who drink soda without sugar compared to those who drink it with sugar.