Zero Sugar - Negative Health? Exploring Alternative Sweeteners

Alternative sweeteners have become popular replacements for natural sweeteners like sugar and honey. Common alternatives include acesulfame-K, aspartame, saccharin, and sucralose. These low-calorie or zero-calorie additives provide a sweet taste and cheap alternative for companies to add to their products while maintaining their “sugar-free” status. Research into the impact of alternative sweeteners on various aspects of human health is still in its infancy and remains a topic of scientific scrutiny. In this post, we will briefly delve into the world of alternative sweeteners and explore their effects on neurochemistry, receptors, quorum sensing in the gut, and their potential relationship with weight gain. Before continuing with this post it is important to consider that alternative sweeteners are cheap, make products hyper-palatable, and significantly increase profit margins.

Effect on the Brain

Alternative sweeteners have a unique relationship with our brain's reward system. When we consume these sweeteners, they stimulate the taste buds on our tongues, sending signals to the brain that a sweet taste has been detected. However, unlike natural sugars, alternative sweeteners do not provide the same energy. This mismatch between the sweet taste and the absence of energy can potentially affect our neurochemistry. Consumption of these sweeteners may impact the release of certain neurotransmitters, such as dopamine, in the brain. Dopamine is associated with pleasure and satisfaction, and its release plays a role in regulating our food intake. Some studies suggest that alternative sweeteners may disrupt the brain's reward system, leading to an altered perception of sweetness and potentially influencing our food choices.

Interpretation of the Stimulus

Our taste buds contain specialised receptors that detect different tastes, including sweetness. When we consume alternative sweeteners, these receptors are activated, just like they would be with natural sugars. However, the molecular structure of these sweeteners differs from that of natural sugars, which can lead to differences in how they are interpreted by our taste receptors. The activation of taste receptors by alternative sweeteners can trigger a response in the brain, leading to the release of various hormones and neurotransmitters. This response can vary from person to person, potentially affecting the perception of sweetness and satiety. Consequently, individuals may respond differently to alternative sweeteners, with some experiencing increased cravings for sweet foods, while others may feel satisfied with less sweetness.

Effect on the Microbiome

Alternative sweeteners may alter the composition and diversity of gut bacteria, potentially leading to dysbiosis. Dysbiosis refers to an imbalance in the gut microbiota, which has been associated with various health conditions. A recent meta-analysis found sweeteners, especially saccharin and sucralose, impact gut microbial populations and hint at metabolic pathway alterations linked to glucose tolerance. Stevia extracts influence gut microbiota, while polyols, reaching the colon, induce dose-dependent flatulence. Some polyols, like isomalt and maltitol, foster bifidobacteria, while lactitol reduces various bacterial populations. Xylitol, in mouse studies, alters fecal bacterial abundances. This complex interaction underscores the ongoing need for research to unveil their effects on human health.

Effect on Weight

One of the primary reasons people turn to alternative sweeteners is to reduce energy intake and manage weight. At face value, these do provide less energy and can support weight loss. However, the relationship between sweeteners and weight gain is complex and not yet fully understood. While alternative sweeteners provide minimal to no energy, they may still influence weight regulation through indirect mechanisms.

The World Health Organization (WHO) recently issued a guideline discouraging the use of non-sugar sweeteners (NSS) for controlling body weight or reducing the risk of noncommunicable diseases. Based on a systematic review and meta-analysis of the current literature, the recommendation suggests NSS use does not provide long-term benefits in reducing body fat for both adults and children. The review also hints at potential adverse effects, including an increased risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and mortality in adults associated with prolonged NSS consumption. The WHO suggests exploring alternatives to reduce free sugar intake, such as opting for naturally occurring sugars in fruits or unsweetened food and beverages. This guideline applies to all individuals, excluding those with pre-existing diabetes, encompassing synthetic and naturally occurring or modified non-nutritive sweeteners.

Final Thought

Alternative sweeteners offer an alluring promise of sweetness without the energy burden, but nothing comes without a price. The effects on neurochemistry, taste receptors, gut quorum sensing, and weight gain suggest risks that we can barely begin to understand. It is important to use intuition in scenarios like these. Constantly, humans are discovering and developing brand-new molecules and introducing them into the food system. While some may be inert, others may have downstream consequences that are unforeseeable until the experiment has run its course, in this case, the experiment is you. Humans have evolved alongside glucose, sucrose and fructose. It is not unfathomable to assume that something 8000x sweeter may have adverse effects on the human organism. If we "umm" and "ahh" about every new molecule that is developed until we have data from randomised control trials, then by the time we draw a long-term consensus the molecule has been in circulation for decades and the damage is already done.