The sweet life

In response to a recent e-Alert about the best ways to substitute sugar in our diets (“Keep it Sweet” 2/25/03), I received quite a few e-mails with comments, opinions, and additional important questions. This topic seems to be as irresistible as a hot fudge sundae.

Carbon minus one

We’ll start with xylitol, the remarkable sugar substitute from Finland that has been shown to help prevent caries (the dental profession’s term for “cavities”). HSI Panelist Richard Cohan, D.D.S., M.B.A., responded with information that sheds more light on the dental health question:

“The short answer to why xylitol does not produce either a sugar spike or an uptick in caries is that it is a five-carbon rather than a six-carbon sugar. Our metabolic processes seem to depend on the latter, or multiples of six carbons. Even bacteria seem not to be able to metabolize five-carbon sugar.”

We’re currently preparing an in-depth look at xylitol for the April issue of the HSI Members Alert. In the meantime, a member named Denis seems to be ready to make the leap without any further information. He writes: “Where can I buy xylitol and stevia?”

Xylitol may be difficult to find in stores, but it’s quite easy to come by through many Internet sources. Just enter “xylitol” into a good search engine and you’ll have more than enough sources to choose from.

On the other hand, stevia is relatively easy to find in most health food shops. But don’t expect to see the words “sugar substitute” on the label. This herb – used as a sweetener for hundreds of years – is classified as a dietary supplement by the FDA, so stevia labels are not allowed to claim that it’s a sweetener. (Yet another completely unnecessary “protection” from the FDA.)

Better – not bitter

In February’s e-Alert I cautioned that some people find stevia to be a little on the bitter side. But a member named Roger doesn’t agree. He says:

“In your recent alert on sweeteners, you briefly mentioned stevia and an opinion that some people find it has a “bitter” taste. I could not disagree more! Stevia is the only sweetener I have found (recommended by my Health-crazed kids, who have wanted Dad off “Nutradeath” (their unaffectionate nickname) for years), which gives me a full sugar-sweet taste with NO side-effects at all. Now off Nutrasweet for 1 month, I have noticed a marked lessening in ringing in my ears.”

A member named Arline agrees with Roger, and adds, “The best sweetener for diabetics is Stevia. It is a plant extract and I am a diabetic and have been using it for years. You can even cook with it in powder form. I use the liquid to sweeten drinks, etc.”

But before you head out to your local health shop, Kathy has this consumer tip: “Regarding stevia, not all brands are created equal. I had been using Wisdom of the Ancients white powdered extract and it did indeed have a bitter aftertaste. However, I have switched to Kal’s and, like the package states, there is no unpleasant aftertaste. And, happily, Kal’s is cheaper.”

Not high on the Low

Back to the mainstream artificial sweeteners, a member named Bob wrote with this question: “You have addressed two of the most commonly available sweeteners: the ‘Yellow stuff’ (Splenda) and the ‘Blue Stuff’ (Nutrasweet). I use the “Pink Stuff” (Sweet’N Low) made from calcium saccharin. I’m wondering how this sweetener compares to the others.”

For an answer to this question I turned to HSI Panelist Allan Spreen, M.D., who had this to say:

“Saccharin has been around a long time. It was not considered such a serious threat to sugar due to an after-taste that bothered some people. It is a concentrated chemical with no nutritional (or caloric) benefit whatsoever. Another negative concerning the substance is that the body thinks it’s getting something sweet to eat, so this sweetener tends, like other artificial sweeteners, to stimulate appetite.”

Natural is as natural does

While I had Dr. Spreen thinking about sweeteners, I asked him to field this question as well, from Miriam: “I have used stevia and I also use barley malt sweetener. What do you think of the barley malt sweetener? Also maple syrup and honey?”

Dr. Spreen: “These sweeteners are a different kettle of fish (or rather, bowl of sugar). Each is a concentrated sweetener with lots of calories (not that calories alone are necessarily a bad thing). The problem is, these agents are unnaturally concentrated (we’ll get to honey). Like squeezing or chewing on natural sugar cane, the liquid obtained is normally no problem for most anyone. They are not yet concentrated, they have all the nutrients required for the assimilation of the sugars and there is natural fiber on board to slow the release of the contained sugars for less of a blood sugar shock on the pancreas.

“Unlike standard refined sugar, however, the concentrating of the sugars in maple syrup or malt sweetener still usually retain the minerals and vitamins needed for their metabolism. Other than for diabetics or those with weight problems these sweeteners may not be too bad (or at least they don’t carry any of the chemical risks of truly artificial sweeteners).

“Honey is a unique agent. Bees are basically mother nature’s little refiners, and efficient sugar concentrators they are. So, if sugar is a metabolic problem (hypoglycemia, diabetes) then honey would not be the answer, as natural as it is. However, in the raw state (and the word ‘raw’ is vital here’uncooked’ does not qualify) honey contains enzymes and nutrients that can be very useful to the body. Unfortunately, heat destroys many of them, and commercial honey is heated to keep it from crystallizing inside processing machinery.

“Natural raw honey is also hard to find. Commercial honey may involve sugar-water placed right outside the hive to standardize the honey’s taste and avoid unique flower inputs. Also, different honeys have different ratios of different types of sugars (glucose, fructose, etc.). I’m told that tupelo honey has the least concentrations of the most blood sugar affecting sugars. In any event, the darkest, natural raw sugars are the way to go if honey is acceptable to one’s dietary needs.”

Mixing signals

Finally, a member named R.T. attempts to clear the decks with a cold turkey approach. R.T. writes, “Why don’t you just recommend doing away with sweets? There is no evidence to suggest that sweet tasting chemicals, including sucrose, are addicting! All it takes is a little will power.”

There’s just one problem with this logic: Sugar IS addicting. As Dr. Spreen mentioned above, just the taste of something sweet can stimulate the appetite. This stimulation also triggers sugar cravings by releasing addiction-building brain chemicals – the same chemicals that create drug and nicotine addictions.

In the September 2001 HSI Members Alert we addressed the subject of sugar addictions in an article titled, “Forget Willpower: Overcome Sugar Addiction in 21 Days with a Natural Herb.” The herb featured in that write up is called gymnema sylvestre which is well known by diabetics for reducing high blood-sugar levels. But this herb has a very unusual trait: when it comes into contact with taste buds it blocks the ability to taste sweetness.

A company called American BioSciences has developed a gymnema gum called Sugarest, designed to “retrain” your brain. When something sweet is eaten after chewing a piece of Sugarest, everything except the sweetness is tasted. Imagine a cookie, minus the sweetness. Not very appetizing, is it? And that’s the idea of course. In time, sweet cravings will vanish if the desired treat doesn’t deliver a sweet taste, accompanied by the release of the brain chemicals that induce addiction.

Sugarest is available through The Harmony Company. For more information, call (800) 422-5518.

To Your Good Health,

Jenny Thompson
Health Sciences Institute