Don’t Fear the Sweetener

I am an unapologetic and uncompromising diet and exercise fanatic. I gave up sugar long ago. When one decides to become prejudice with calories, sugar is almost always the first dismissal. Your plans for Friday night follow closely. Unfortunately, if you have a sweet tooth, it never goes away fully even after years of abstinence.

To this day I wake up every morning craving sugar. Or some kind of white powder.

Stevia baked goods and Diet Soda have replaced sugar and have become a terrible affliction.  An affliction only slightly less disturbing than my public masturbation habits. Fortunately, I live in San Francisco and only get flack for the former. Everyone seems to be fine with the masturbation so long as I stay in the Tenderloin.

Long story short, I have an emotional investment in standing up for artificial sweeteners.  Like all good, new technology that is here to help mankind (Think nuclear power, cell phones, pet rocks), artificial sweeteners (AS) have also gained their fair share of skepticism and criticism.  My obstinance and willingess to jump to the defense of AS is like a soldier snapping to attention.  Either I have done legitimate research or I'm just that thickheaded.  Here are the AS that you know are awful but never did research on to justify that thinking.

This guy has you figured out. 

Saccharine
Saccharine and all of the other well-known AS was invented/discovered earlier than you think. Saccharin was “discovered” in 1879 when penny farthings and handlebar mustaches were honest fashion attempts. Saccharin was made on the pretense of formulating a coal tar derivative. This is the scariest confirmed information you will read about saccharin.

Saccharine is a salt. A very sweet and completely unsalty salt. It is water soluble and resistant to temperatures of up to 228.8 C and pH levels as low as 1.5 (very acidic). These physical properties and its large, complex structure prevents saccharin from dissociating into smaller components. It is mal-absorbed, therefore ineffective on the human body. Though it can pass through the digestive system, it cannot enter into individual cells. One simply eats it, it travels through the digestive system via the interstitial fluid of the intestinal lining and is delivered to the liver and then the cardiovascular system. After leaving the heart, it ends up at the kidneys where it is filtered and micturated out completely intact in a colloid mixture (urine).  So in other words, too big for cells but not so for the nephrons.

Pictured above: Something that I am far smarter than you to
be able to mention casually.

Saccharine is the disappointing husband you married; it stays the same forever but is spit out as a dilute version of what he (or "it") once was.

The only real health concern for saccharine comes from the mentioned physical structure. In the 90's, the experts thought that saccharine caused bladder cancer. Because it doesn’t dissolute, the hypothesis was that abrasions and scarring in the urinary system from saccharine lead to tumor development. These hypotheses were later falsified because of two confounds.

The first confound is a tired mistake that keeps being made: the trials called for unrealistic amounts of saccharin for the test rats to eat.  Proportions were given that no human would ever eat.

The second confound overlooked two differing characteristics of the rat’s anatomy versus that of humans. Rats have a much more acidic urine than humans. Rats also have an enzyme in their urinary system that catabolizes saccharine. These unique rat features broke saccharine into smaller, more physically harmful molecules.

When testing addressed these confounds, the risk of bladder cancer was contradicted and the FDA gave saccharine a clean bill of health in 2000. In 2010, the EPA stated it was safe for human health and the environment.  This is important to note since remember you're flushing it down your toilet.  Since then, both the EPA and FDA statuses have been unwavering. Though take that with a grain of saccharine, because both of those regulating entities were long ago castrated by this guy:

This picture doesn't really need a caption but here we are.

Aspartame
In 1965, aspartame was accidentally discovered like saccharine. The FDA put aspartame on scientific scrutiny for 15 years and approved it for public consumption in 1981. It’s structure is an organic molecule, that of two bonding amino acids: aspartic acid and phenylalanine. Aspartame is synthesized in the same way that alcohol, beer, cheese and soy sauce are: anaerobic fermentation. In the least glamorous terms possible, aspartame and all those other indulgences are merely microbial organic waste and bacterial carcasses.

Meaning they're organic - just like urine and hydrochloric acid! They must be good for you!

In aspartame, the two amino acids are synthesized by a methyl bond (See picture above). This bridging methyl group is the cause for all the controversy surrounding aspartame. Therein lies the first contradiction; methyl groups are present in many types of proteins and carbohydrates.  Things we eat on a daily.  Methanol is one of the many molecules that binds two or more other molecules together to form a complex. You can thank the methyl group for giving us starches, fiber, protein, amino acids and other things needed for living and crap.

This same methyl group found in aspartame is speculated to be more volatile than those found in “naturally” methylated molecules. As a reminder, they are not: a methyl group in a “naturally” occurring bond between two amino acids has the same reactivity as that which is synthesized in a lab. But let’s give the hippies their cake and eat it too.

When a methyl group is digested, it creates methanol, which has the capacity to convert to formaldehyde. Formaldehyde has many scary health implications. I think we have all heard the precautionary urban legend of those who smoke formaldehyde.  This is also known as a Friday night in the Appalachians.  

These risks are muted when remembering that any food can make formaldehyde when in- and digested. Though aspartame creates these chemicals at a fraction of what sugar does. This is because aspartame is 200 times sweeter than sugar and is used at proportionally smaller quantities to give food equivalent sweetness as sucrose or normal granulated sugar. Diabeteswatch.com says that drinking a glass of juice abound with fructose would have a higher potential methanol, i.e. formaldehyde, production than 21 cans of Diet Coke.

Take that, juice cleansers. Your undertaking process is already underway. 

Diabeteswatch.com also adds that the orange juice is more likely to spike your insulin levels and interfere with your hormones. After all, there is more sugar present and it can actually transport into cells and play a crucial role in affecting glucagon and insulin.

Aspartame also has another problem: it and its derivatives are too large to be absorbed through the intestinal or stomach lining. Even when methanol or formaldehyde are produced, they pass through the gut, as does formaldehyde. No formaldehyde or formic acid has been shown to bio-accumulate anywhere in infants, older or sick people. Aside from patients with phenylketonuria, everyone simply excretes these potentially harmful products. Much in the same way that urine expels excessive waste, the intestinal tract does the same for formic acid and formaldehyde with all the other undesirables.

Another fallacy is that the methyl group is converted this readily. Some microbiologists even argue that the necessary enzyme to convert the methyl group into methanol (i.e. formic acid and formaldehyde) is not found in the gut. Thermolysin, the enzyme that creates these compounds, is found only in the bacteria bacillus thermoproteolyticus (b. thermo), a bacteria that has only been observed in plants. Even if it was of the 400 common gut flora, b. thermo would require temperatures higher than 89.6 Celsius, far higher than the normal mammalian homeostasis. Suppose this temperature for b. thermo to thrive and function was met, the host would have far greater problems than those posed by methanol or formaldehyde.  The very conversion of the methyl group has been through how we synthesize aspartame to begin with, which includes the use of b. thermo and its mentioned enzyme. Anything lower than 50 C reduces the b. thermo activity by more than half. Anything at or near the human body temperature makes it innocuous.

A pH of 1.5 for the CH3 (methyl) group to break off of aspartame and to transform it into something dangerous is present in the human stomach. But without the required temperature, this simply does not happen. The methyl group remains intact and is neither absorbed readily nor interacts with the endocrine system.

So to recap, humans have neither the enzyme, the bacteria or temperature to seize the methyl group from Aspartame.  We have the pH in our stomachs but the synthesis does not happen without the other three requirements.  Even if formaldehyde is made, there is far less of it and it passes through our digestive system, unable to be digested or absorbed.

Sucralose
The more recent concoction of AS, sucralose was produced in 1976 with the actual intent of creating a sugar substitute. It was not put into food for another 15 years after countless trials in several countries.  America finally approved its addition to mass production and commercial use in 1998 after many other countries used their people as a petri dish: the world was the poison and taste-tester for U.S.  Since then, sucralose has been getting put into everything.  Diet Pepsi is the most recent product to start using it, replacing aspartame.

Ha! And you thought you were getting aspartame!

As the name suggests, sucralose, a.k.a. Splenda, is a chlorinated sucrose molecules. This makes sucralose a more heat and pH stable compound (around 180 C). But this also makes it lousy for cooking. Though this heat tolerance does contribute to its low digestive and absorptive rate, i.e. caloric value.

Even though the laboratory setting has proven countless times that sucralose is heat and pH stable, food scientists set the limits of 1500 mg/kg body weight/day. For the average male and female, this would be 120 and 105 grams per day, respectively. When you consider that sucralose is 600 times sweeter than sugar, this makes it less likely for anyone to cross that threshold; one would have to eat their body weight in sugar to achieve the same level of sweetness.  120 and 105 grams of sucralose per day amounts to 2,626 - 3,000 cans of Diet Coke or Pepsi One.

This many cans of diet soda is required because Sucralose is much sweeter than sugar and requires lower amounts of it to achieve the same taste.   This is also a chief complaint of sugar substitutes, making their limits of intake less likely to cross. Even if you do have an insatiable sweet tooth, you’d probably get sick from the maltodextrin and dextrose that splenda and AS is almost always paired with in the store-bought variety in order to dilute the overpowering sweetness.

Take my experience as a warning: when I tried to eat a pound of Splenda, my migraines were so intense that I stayed inside the entire next day with the shades drawn and a cold pack on my forehead. I have no idea why I did this.

There is an FDA recommended restriction on daily sucralose intake because the body does actually metabolize some of it. It is technically a sugar but even these rates in commercial Splenda are very low. However, you would have to be eating at  the mentioned threshold levels for just 4.75% of that mass to be metabolized. This would only amount to 2.5-9.25 grams if you were eating 105-120 grams per day of pure sucralose. The rest is excreted. Eat lower amounts and these rates of metabolism are even less, even benign. Chemical reactions are dependent on molarities in order for chemical change to occur. Bare in mind that these are theoretical rates of reactions. In real life, even ideal conditions require a higher concentration to see a reaction all the way through.

We are also forgetting that chlorine is a normal solute in human bodily tissue and is essential for the osmotic gradient, i.e. normal physiology. Critics only have the chlorine molecule in sucralose as their point of contention for the sugar substitute. Otherwise, sucralose is almost exactly like a sucrose molecule. Its slightly more complex structure is why it is difficult to digest and even more so to absorb. To say that this is harmful is also like saying that eating salt is harmful too.

Chlorine has a very high electron affinity. This is why its non-ion form is used for cleaners: it takes electrons away in order to go into it’s stable ionic form as Cl-, meaning it wants to steal other atoms/molecules' electrons.  This leads to structural degradation of whatever atom is in its vicinity.  Except Chlorine’s electron affinity to the sucrose molecule is way higher than anything it will encounter in a living body. Already being bound to another molecule makes it less powerful as an electron accepter, i.e. not harmful to your body. This is also why sucralose is so heat and pH stable and practically indigestible.

Worth mentioning is that even the European Union has given the greenlight for sucralose to be used in consumer goods, and they don’t even like GMOs, whatever the hell those even are.

The Current Debate
If you’re like me and constantly clearing parties out with your obsession with food safety, the most recent safety concern over sweeteners is the study from the Wizeman Institute in Israel. The study confirms that a diet consistent in daily intake of AS can change the microbiome of your intestinal tract and cause a spike in insulin levels.

According to Oregon State University and Georgetown University, sugar does this exact same thing but to a far more damaging degree.  The side effects of altered microflora range from slightly annoying (diarrhea, digestion) to more severe (insulin spikes and reduced resistance to infection, diabetes and all of its accompanying ailments).   

In a similar microfloral study, the more damaging effects of sugar on the intestines can cause a condition that has earned the classification of “Type 3 Diabetes” (T3D).  Allow me to cause a disruption in your GI tract by elaborating on T3D and to push my own agenda. According to the study, T3D causes major cognitive malfunctions. And we are not just talking things like forgetting which microwave you left your cat in. We’re talking forgetfulness on the same level of Alzheimers.  This is caused by a "bottom-up" effect of inflammation originating from the gut causing swelling of nerve tissue. 

But wait, there’s more!

The brain gets another dose of stupid with the increased levels of glucose in your blood, leading to a spike in insulin production. Much in the same way that your other bodily cells can become resistant to insulin and stop using glucose for energy, your brain cells can also became ‘tarded. If you’ve ever seen a diabetes patient accidentally let their blood sugar get too low, they start acting infantile and out of control. This is what you are like if you are Type 3 Diabetic except all the time because; your brain can’t use glucose efficiently or even at all. 

Experts are even saying that decreased sensitivity over a lifetime might be another contributor or cause all its own for Alzheimer’s or dementia. And then there are all these other bad things associated with sugar.

Compare this to the health implications of AS in this article. That is, the health implications that have actually been validated. Here’s a quick recap:

1) Saccharin causes bladder cancer in rats if they are force-fed unrealistic amounts of it.
2) Maladjustment of microflora but not nearly to the same degree as regular mono and disaccharides.
3) AS are too sweet. Consequently, they tend to be blended or cut with other starches like dextrose or maltodextrin. These fillers can actually cause the same problems that sugar does because the body can actually digest and absorb them. In case you forgot what dangers simple sugar causes, here’s the list again.

Bringing it All Together
Think too about the massive conspiracy that would have to be responsible for the dangers of AS from getting out. To this day, the gun, tobacco, alcohol and petroleum lobbies have fared better with keeping their instruments of destruction alive and well. These entities have more funding and are more scrutinized than those for food and drugs. The ethics of these industries are a highly divisive political debate. 

Yet almost everyone universally agrees that food safety is a necessary bureaucracy. It would be nearly impossible for AS to have come this far, this early (1981) and overcome all of the skepticism and regulation were they not safe.  Aspartame was synthesized in 1965 and underwent 16 years of precautionary testing. The FDA treads with extreme trepidation. They finally gave eggs the okay after decades of caution to cholesterol. 

Even if the skepticism is about the American government’s competency, there are plenty of international agencies that have approved aspartame’s safety. This affirmation is based on over 200 studies, both government and private entities.

A large part of the controversy surrounding AS safety is the sugar industry itself. Saccharine being a prime example. Once again, those big corporations and old money want to take our pot, free healthcare and LA railway systems. It’s no wonder they would be after our sweet saccharin. 

 

And, of course, our Lucky Charms. 

Quite the opposite has been happening recently. Since the smear campaign against AS did not halt the introduction of it into more consumer goods, the real sugar industry found more creative ways of selling it. There is a reason why you don’t see advertisements for sugar anymore; it’s in everything, acting as a preservative. If one buys anything that is not in the meat, produce or dairy department of a grocery store, chances are there is unnecessary amounts of sugar in it. The degree is so staggering that entire films have been made about sugar's ubiquity and imminent health implications (Fed Up, Vegucated, Super Size Me, Food Inc., etc.).

The volatile PR problems that saccharine has had over the past century actually further validates its safety. Hundreds of studies have been conducted on saccharine over its lifetime in the U.S. alone. It has been subjected to an evolving scientific field and tightening safety standards, hence the oscillating scientific consensus on its safety. Yet the evidence is still in favor of saccharine and general AS safety.

These conclusions to AS may be different tomorrow but that does not mean the science that confirms its safety is faulty or lacking; they are simply the best resources available presently. Like Europe, take a precaution but don’t exclude them based on the popular fear and smear campaigns that a lot of laymen use out of ignorance and hearsay rather than credible erudition.