There was a recent study done on artificial sweeteners that sparked this on going debate. This battle has been ragging for a while now with people saying “artificial sweeteners cause cancer” or “regular sugar is better than artificial sweeteners”. When people say these phrases they are typically getting their information from the media headlines and not reading the research studies. People tend to believe information that is already based on their own opinions. Do you ever notice that these people often have the loudest voice too? So more people take what they hear and out goes the spread of misinformation.
First and foremost nutrition is so hard to research because apparently, it’s unethical to put people in a bubble for years and feed them what we want. So much of the research is done using animal models or based on humanity's memory of what they consume daily. Do you even remember what you ate yesterday, let alone for a whole week? I want to give you a look into what the “Perfect” nutrition study would look like. Picture this, we have a group of thousands of people, equal men and women, range of nationalities or ethnicities, all exercised the exact amount, no one smoked or consumed alcohol, and each person had the exact same diet. Lastly, we put them all in a lab for 20 years to see the impact of one food we wanted to introduce. Sounds easy right?? Nope…
The new study on artificial sweeteners had participants do 24-hr food recalls every 6 months, which is more than most. The study, done in Francs, is called Artificial sweeteners and cancer risk: Results from the NutriNet-Santé population-based cohort study, here is the link.
First, let's define artificial sweeteners, and going forward I will call them AFSs. AFSs are sugar substitutes that add sweetness for a very small amount of calories or none at all. AFSs add much more sweetness than sugar. For example, Saccharin (aka sweet n low) is 200-700x sweeter than sugar; Sucralose (aka Splenda) is 600x sweeter; Aspartame (aka equal) is 160-220x sweeter. You don't need a lot of it to increase sweetness.
We all love sweets, it's not something we hide, we crave them. Due to that fact, the world embraces sweetness as our one commonality. Go chocolate for bringing us all together! Companies have added it to products worldwide to increase that sweet taste without the added “devil calories” that we discussed in the last post. Sounds amazing right? Added sweetness without the added calories, double bonus! However, there is controversy over whether they are safe or not.
The NutriNet-Santé study followed 100,000 people over 8 years, mostly women. Each participant self-reported 24hrs worth of food intake every 6 months. The study then attempted to calculate the amount of sweetener consumed by using a French database and other sources they had about those certain food groups. This isn’t ideal as it would be hard to get those exact amounts that the person consumed ,based on their reporting.
Important takeaways from the NutriNet-Santé study:
Food recalls are not 100% accurate, as so many people underestimate or don't report correctly. A percentage of the people in the study were excluded due to underreporting. Food recalls can give you an insight into what people consume but NEVER the whole picture. Also, when people self-report or track their food they tend to eat differently during that time than they normally do because they are more self-aware of what they are doing. I also feel people under-report or false report because they don't want to be honest with themselves or the person sitting on the other side. It's just not the most accurate tool, but again we can't put you all into a lab for years either.
AFS intake was not 100% accurate as they had to base the amount on what was reported in the food. No one consumed AFS’s straight so it's hard to justify how much was consumed by each.
The majority of the population in the study were women, which creates a bias, and makes the results unable to transfer to the whole population. They found higher incidences of breast cancer in the participants, which would make sense since most of the participants were female.
The study also placed all results onto the sweeteners and we know that lifestyle choice, genetics, environment, obesity, nutrition, age, etc. all play a role in whether people get cancer. The study stated the highest level of cancer incidence were among those that were smokers, less physically active and more likely to have diabetes (ding ding ding - you don’t say….).
Lastly, the study states this: “suggests associations between AFSs, especially aspartame and acesulfame-K, and cancer risk, more specifically breast and obesity-related cancers.” Association does not mean causation. The AFSs were not proven to cause cancer but they SUGGEST that it could... One could also suggest that actual sugar causes cancer.
So the takeaway from all of this isn't that you should go and consume a shit ton of diet sodas, we know that sweeteners aren't the healthiest of options. I would not tell someone to go drink their weight in diet sodas, but I would say if someone has diabetes and drinks 6, Mt. Dews, daily it's time to make a change. If said person wanted that carbonation and sweet drink then diet is the way to go. We do know that having too many ASFs could cause diarrhea or some GI discomfort, but they will not cause cancer based on the research today. Could that change? Absolutely, down the road, they may find causation, but as of now, based on the research they are safe. If you want to reduce your risk of cancer eat well (add variety and color), exercise, reduce stress, get control of your chronic diseases, and focus on your whole health (body, mind, and soul). However, know that even with you doing all the right things, we still may get cancer.
Comments