If you think that you can lose weight by taking low-calorie sweeteners, you are wrong. Better stick with sugar and pour its artificial substitute down the drain.

Researchers in the United States have found that the artificial sweeteners are more fattening than sugar as the consumption of the low-calorie substitutes makes it harder for people to control their intake as well as body weight.

In fact, according to the researchers, sugar can actually be healthier than low-calorie sweeteners as the sweet taste prompts the body to go for a large intake of calories.

"(Our) data clearly indicate that consuming a food sweetened with no-calorie saccharine can lead to greater body weight gain and adiposity than would consuming the same food sweetened with a higher-calorie sugar," according to lead researcher Susan Swithers.

The researchers at Purdue University in Indiana came to the conclusion after conducting an experiment on rodents who were fed on yogurt.

They found that those rats who ate yogurt sweetened with zero-calorie saccharin later consumed more calories, put on more body fat, gained more weight, and didn't make up for it by cutting back later than those who were given yogurt sweetened with glucose.

The researchers surmised that by breaking the connection between a sweet sensation and high-calorie food - the use of saccharin changes the body's ability to regulate intake, the 'Behavioural Neuroscience' journal has reported.

The researchers have acknowledged that this outcome may seem counterintuitive and might not come as welcome news to human clinical researchers and health-care practitioners, who have long recommended low or no-calorie sweeteners.

What's more, the data come from rats, not humans. However, they have noted that their findings match emerging evidence that people who drink more diet drinks are at higher risk for obesity and metabolic syndrome like abdominal fat, high blood pressure and insulin resistance that put people at risk for heart disease and diabetes.

TRANSLATION: Weight loss is more about impulse control than actual consumption, for otherwise-healthy people, and the license to consume unlimited quantities of treats provided by sugar substitutes translates in to lack of discipline in other areas.

Providing people with a seemingly easy way out of an effort they don't want to make is a hugely profitable industry. Can the twain ever be made to meet?

TRANSLATION: Weight loss is more about impulse control than actual consumption, for otherwise-healthy people, and the license to consume unlimited quantities of treats provided by sugar substitutes translates in to lack of discipline in other areas.Bingo. The problem with studies like this is that there are too few of them, and they don't receive enough press. I can't really say if this study's methodology is sound, but it seems to be in line with similar studies I've read. Understandably so, given the money machine behind the low-cal industry that you rightly point out, and their incentive to keep studies like this on the fringe.

Hey, can you provide a link to that? I have a few people I'd like to forward it to.

Someone I know insists that sugar is an addictive drug that should be avoided at all costs, and we should consume a special kind of sweetener instead (might not be the same as the one that is used for the comparison above).

As far as I know, she also maintains that teabags and any kind of tablet (eg Aspirin) is also unhealthy.

I think the truth is, its all about self control, and perhaps more importantly, getting exercise while eating a healthy diet. health diet does not mean a minimal diet, it means something substantial enough to satisfy you and provide nourishment.

@NOG:

Here's (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ET_Cetera/Sweeteners_more_fattening_than_sugar/articleshow/2773358.cms) the article I cited, and here's (http://www.abcnews.go.com/Health/Diet/story?id=4271986&page=1) an interesting rebuttal/interpretation.

Long has the irony of ordering a Big Mac, Large fries and diet Coke been the topic of comedians and dieticians alike. So called "diet" food is supposed to help when eaten as part of a balanced and nutritious meal. It was/is not meant to give license to splurge and over eat elsewhere because, "hey, my 100 oz. Coke had no calories!!"

Someone I know insists that sugar is an addictive drug that should be avoided at all costs...


Sounds like my kind of girl.

Ever hear the phrase "fat buzz" ? No? How about "protein buzz" ? No? That's because those substances are not addictive and do not give us a burst of endorphins every time we eat them. Sugar does.

Controlling sugar addiction is the key to all healthy eating. It's easy to become a vegetarian. I dare anyone reading this to give up sugar for 24 hours. You'll get some idea of what heroin addicts go through when they go cold turkey.

I'm sorry, but this is ludicrous. You're actually comparing sugar to heroin? Sugar isn't physically addictive, full stop. If people are psychologically addicted to sugar and can't (don't?) want to stop eating sweets, and then want to blame it on the "Evil Sugar" then sorry but they're not getting any sympathy from me. Yes, getting rid of psychological addiction is hard, very hard maybe, but it just does not compare to a real physical addiction.

You get no physical addiction to many drugs. I know that at least cocaine do not inflict any physical addiction, it is all psycological.

Sounds like my kind of girl.

Ever hear the phrase "fat buzz" ? No? How about "protein buzz" ? No? That's because those substances are not addictive and do not give us a burst of endorphins every time we eat them. Sugar does.

Controlling sugar addiction is the key to all healthy eating. It's easy to become a vegetarian. I dare anyone reading this to give up sugar for 24 hours. You'll get some idea of what heroin addicts go through when they go cold turkey.


The reason we crave high carbohydrate foods is because our bodies are used to living in a time when food was far more scarce. So, if food was available, we ate, because we might not get a chance again. hence, sugary and fatty foods are very attractive to us.

Sugar probably more so than fat, because it is so readily converted to energy. Our bodies just havent evolved to realize we dont need so much of it.

our brains use smell and taste to tell us what to eat and what not to eat. its why raw alcohol doesnt taste great - its literally a poison.

Sugar isn't physically addictive, full stop.

It is addictive for the same reason cocaine is addictive. When your blood sugar levels rise your brain pumps out endorphins -- that's the same stuff that gets released after you have an orgasm. Nicotine and cocaine have the same affect.

You can actually snort sugar or let it soak in through your mucous membrane, i.e. sucking on a lolipop. You don't have to swallow it and digest it. Cocaine works exactly the same way.

Fat and protein (the other two major sources of calories) do not work this way. No one craves protein or fat. Fat does't make you high; sugar does.

Again I say: try and eat nothing but fat and protein for 24 hours. Nuts, cheeses, meats, vegetables (no fruit!) -- perfectly healthy, by the way. You will be in Hell and craving sugar like you'll never imagine. The opposite is not true: give up protein or fat for a day, a week. Become a vegetarian. No problem.

Something I just found out from an older diabetic I work with: did you know that artificial sweeteners were originally designed and intended to replace sugar, not for dieting, but for diabetics only? You see, the mechanic behind this is pretty simple. When your taste buds register sugar, they send a message to your brain: 'SUGAR!!'. Your brain then tells your pancreas: 'Sugar Incoming!' This causes your pancreas to release insulin and start draining the blood of blood sugar in proportion to the amount of 'sugar' that is incoming. With artificial sweeteners, that sugar never arrives, so our blood sugar is low, which signals out brains to start eating more. The problem with diabetics (or at least most of them) is that their pancreas doesn't produce insulin the way its supposed to, so they never loose blood sugar that way, but real sugar would flood their system and cause kidney damage.

Thanks for the link, Rally, and that rebuttal is interesting, if somewhat poorly done, too. The problem I have with it is that, while it's fine and nice to say that people control what they eat, 95% of us don't. If you think you do, try fasting for a day. Seriously, 24 hours without food. It isn't that hard, really, but most of you will have to stop yourselves at least a dozen times pacing the kitchen or standing in front of the snack cabinet because you eat by habit. You may rationally decide when and what your big meals are, but snacks are very much an impulse item.