I believe the point is the effects are seen, despite the underlying chemical makeup of the sweeteners. So that’s the point

The "Well Informed" column is a weekly series of very short articles (half a page, or even just a column) on health issues. You can hardly expect a very deep dive.

> Nope. There's barely even an article there, and it just makes a giant sweeping generalization

The article mentions both RCTs that show the benefit, as well as long-term observational studies that show the disadvantages of sugar substitutes, and furthermore clarifies that "proving causality through such observational studies is difficult". That strikes me as fairly nuanced.

What issues do you experience with the currently available sweeteners?

One of the main techniques of click bait is the counter-intuitive truth statement.

"The thing you thought was good is bad! The thing you thought was bad is good!". Articles are clicked on, and if you are lucky therein lies more nuance. Often not.

As long as we have the online ad economy, you are going to see articles like this.

Why was it pulled?

It is easy to get off soda once you get off it already and drink water. As when you do eventually get back to it and go "Maybe I'll have a coke" what you will find will be severely disappointing. Mouthfeel is terrible. Every sip you try and get that taste in your imagination of what you think is coke but you end up just tasting fructose concoction and carbonation. Makes you feel dehydrated after, like you have to chug a pint of water just to make your saliva not so viscous. The only sugary drink I tolerate now is lemonade I make myself. And I'm drinking it partially for carb load.

So really, get off the soda. It isn't even a great mental reward. Have a piece of chocolate instead. There are gut health benefits with chocolate.

Your comment:

> people need to realize instead that moderation is a better answer than continuing to be gluttanous over dubiously "better" alternatives.

The article:

> The prudent thing to do is eschew these products altogether.

That's why for this one, I will have to think for myself, if the fake sugar can fool my tongue, it surely may also fool my digestives organs and that should not be good.

Modern culture seems to encourage "hacking" more than cultivating self-discipline.

Supply chain issues. The factory that manufactured the raw D-tagatose used in Tagatesse halted production.

But it looks like, these days, others are on it. I just checked and both tagatose and psicose (allulose) are available quite cheaply on Amazon.com. This is something rather new...

A moral position made with no argument.

I find it emptier than the calories you condemn. And of worse character than the people you so impugn upon.

Why? Why not make a more enjoyable world? Why insist in denial? It's so confusing to me that such bitterness and aggressive zeal, such negative energies, go so unchecked. And for what?

I hate to drag an innocent into my countrr-tirade, but Paul Ford writing about mounjaro/glp-1 was a great article for raising this issue that medicine has fixated upon a correction of disease, leaving it adrift at dealing with the questions of what happens if biotechnology can make us better. Not just correct the wrong, but give us that better living through chemistry (etc). It's so tiring that the progressive possibilities we encounter out there always spark such fierce negative clawing us backward condemnations. It's all a hill of supposition, a politics of fear & scaring. https://www.wired.com/story/new-drug-switched-off-appetite-m...

I do think there are amazing human characteristics of restraint & measure, that have to be developed. But I don't necessarily know that projecting that onto our food or how we manage our weight is particularly an important load bearing piece of that human character. I don't think anyone knows that. And it seems like we're back at this constantly repeating juncture: we can improve how enjoyable life is for many, and, "this has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." -DA

Zookeepers determined modern fruits are harming their animals https://qz.com/1408469/humans-have-bred-fruits-to-be-so-high...

High quality critique. Thanks!

Nowadays? These sorts of tosser articles have been the norm for many decades. And if you think this is bad, boy you should see how wellness influencers twist fact into some massively distorted nonsense to sell gullible rubes their books/powders/etc.

>These are industrial experiments, in a similar vein to various Canola oils but much worse.

Ah, a "seed oil" guy. This is the indication to everyone what level of discourse and scientific fact you're bringing to the table.

In fact, I'll just cite one single bit in your claim-

>Contrary to their purpose, some studies show artificial sweeteners may raise type 2 diabetes risk by up to 38%

This suffers from the same "aha!" nonsense as the garbage submission (and it is garbage). The "study" you are citing was an observational, epidemiological study. And wow, crazy and hard to believe, but it turns out that people with weight problems (and all that comes with that) are more likely to have partaken of "at least one" sugar substitute drink. This is similar to studying people who chew nicotine gum and for obvious reasons finding a higher rate of lung cancer, so then declare that nicotine gum causes lung cancer. It is so staggeringly stupid it belies belief, but it makes for a headline to fool some rubes.

I was off it for 6mo or so while I lost the weight. It wasn’t especially hard to stop, but water is in no way a replacement for it in any way.

It’s the thing I prefer. Don’t like chocolate or really other sweet things in general. Even full sugar soda is far too sugary for me, outside of some niche drinks out of Europe.

The available scientific evidence on fake sugars tends to skew towards “fairly safe, but not entirely so” until you get into observational studies as mentioned in the article. The few everyone loves to continually cite that show otherwise are using mouse or rat models with some absurd 10x safe daily ingestion rates to show what amounts to rather mild impacts.

There really is nothing like an ice cold Diet Coke for me after working hard in the back yard in the summer heat. Or something to sip on during horrible corporate meetings.

I’ve also wore a glucose monitor for fun, and it in no way impacts blood sugar levels - one of the leading bro science hot takes. I definitely can see how it can be involved in habits though and trigger mental signals to overindulge in other substances during and after consumption. Having one certainly begets the impulse to have another I need to watch out for.

I did pick up a (black) coffee habit to reduce consumption a bit, but I’m not convinced that’s any healthier.

Just for everyone to make up their own minds based on the data, here are multiple studies:

2025: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S126236362...

2023: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10465821/

To address your point: Potential for reverse causality cannot be eliminated; however, many sensitivity analyses were computed to limit this and other potential biases

2023: Clinical review https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10822749/

multiple studies have shown various side effects associated with the use of these sweeteners. These side effects include gastrointestinal symptoms [9], neurologic [10] and taste perception changes [11], allergic reactions [12], insulin and metabolic effects [13], and cardiovascular effects [14]. In addition, ASs have been shown to affect the gut microbiota that may mediate certain side effects [15]. Most importantly, many researchers have assessed the potential effect of ASs on the cancer risk of people who consume these products [16,17].

and

Human studies performed by Suez et al. evaluated the impact of ASs on the human microbiome. A total of 381 individuals without diabetes who self-reported regular consumption of ASs, as determined by a food frequency questionnaire, were included. The study demonstrated a significant association between the consumption of ASs and the development of central obesity, elevated fasting blood glucose levels, increased hemoglobin A1c levels, impaired glucose tolerance, and elevated alanine aminotransferase levels. In addition, a subgroup analysis was conducted to compare those who consumed higher amounts of ASs with those who did not consume any ASs. The results of this analysis revealed a statistically significant elevation in hemoglobin A1c levels, even after controlling for body mass index.

Both studies directly and outright measure only correlation. There is no magical confounding variables adjustment.

They outright state this. The first directly says that their higher sugar substitute group had a higher BMI, lower activity, less fibre, and so on.

"To address your point: Potential for reverse causality cannot be eliminated; however, many sensitivity analyses were computed to limit this and other potential biases"

I've actually read the study (given that certain sorts cite it constantly), and do you know what "limited" that bias? Nothing. Literally nothing.

It is a correlation study. People with weight problems are more likely to utilize sugar substitutes. Reversing the causation is the root of an enormous amount of idiot science, though.

And just to be clear, researcher who post this bunk know exactly what they're doing, and usually it is to yield a "more research should be done" conclusion. It's when laymen start building their little notepad.exe listing of everything that supports their nonsense that it becomes a problem.