Does the NY Times have an article on salt substitutes for adults and children?
1
Stevia should not be included in an article about artificial sweeteners.
Stevia is a natural herb that’s many times sweeter than sugar.
It has no calories, zero glycemic index, tastes good when mixed in food and drinks.
Zevia sodas are Sweetened with stevia. They are far healthier for adults and children than artificially sweetened sodas.
Or sweeten seltzer with stevia and a little fruit juice.
4
@Julia Just because it is "natural" doesn't make it better. The same reservations apply.
9
If the children don't have an excess of calories they won't want to go play outside. They will stay inside and play video games.
They burn the same amount of calories, according to an Amazon study
I thought there was research that suggested that artificial sweeteners interfered with the body’s hunger and fullness signals? If so, that alone would be enough reason for me to not encourage their use by children.
3
Who in god's name would give their little kids artificial sweeteners?
11
@tony Have you seen "little kids" in the US today? We're starting to see morbid obesity and even type II diabetes (what used to be called "adult onset" diabetes) in elementary school children. The advice to give unsweetened drinks is unrealistic given the toxic beverage environment the children are surrounded with. If you don't give them diet drinks, they will drink the sugar (really high fructose corn syrup) ones anywhere they can get their hands on them, which is a LOT of places.
5
@tony I buy the sugar free popsicles-I don’t want the calories. My kids eat them too.
The WHO have produced a number of reports on sugar intake over the past few years. Most recently they reported that infant foods often contain high levels of sugar.
The other important point is that a major result of high sugar intake - particularly carbonated drinks - is caries and other dental problems. This has been noted in adolescents and in athletes consuming energy drinks.
2
I agree with Tom Miller. Stevia is essentially an edible plan
4
I was hoping to learn whether there is distinction between Stevia, which is a traditional plant based sweetener, and the others
4
Coffee, wine, beer and water should be the only daily beverages. Sweet (fake or real) drinks have no place in one’s daily routine. I’ll tell you a secret - If you limit sweet drinks to weekly or less frequently then they taste amazing and you can have real sugar guilt free.
2
@Perfect Commenter
Of course the coffee, wine, beer do not apply to children. That leaves only water on this list, which is going to feel limited fast to most kids.
1
@erikah People really need to let herbal tea and fruit-infused water into their lives.
I used to work at a children's hospital. They had water dispensers with pieces of fruit floating in them. Kids were usually pretty happy to try the different flavors.
@Perfect Commenter
I would add tea to the list.
Whatever the risks of nonnutritive sweeteners they seem dwarfed by the risk of the juvenile obesity epidemic. Clearly parents should control the intake of sodas by their children but if they can't non caloric sodas have to be better.
9
@Todd Or flavored seltzer. Tastes great and no phospherous.
2
This really should be article about processed foods.
3
Obesity, cardiovascular disease and hyperactivity are extremely important sugar-related issues but SO IS TOOTH DECAY!
Having practiced Pediatric Dentistry for 4-1/2 decades, being well-versed in pediatric nutrition and active in academics I have seen way too many overwhelmingly avoidable life-threatening dental decay and infections related directly to sugar. Parents tend to buy what their children WANT - sweet cereals, candy, cookies, cakes, soda and every conceivable thing that a kid can put in his/her mouth including honey-coated bottle nipples. They put their kids to sleep with milk-filled bottles and even colas. That is child abuse, plain and simple.
Often, by age 3, children have extensive caries involving critical molars, the correction of which involves hospitalization and use of general anesthesia. The cost of this individually runs in the thousands of dollars; nationally in the BILLIONS. It is almost ALL AVOIDABLE.
Choose your poison. We KNOW sugar is a huge problem; we have no definitive evidence about substitutes. From a DENTAL point of view, sugar is poison, especially sticky stuff like cereals and "fruit" rolls. READ LABELS (the % of sugar - simple math). If it's more than 5%, find some REAL food. YOU are the parent; YOU have responsibilities to your children.
The world is a tough enough place for kids, and it's getting worse. Over THIS you have immediate control! USE IT! Ask your Pediatrician and Pediatric Dentist for advice.
20
@RealTRUTH
And if you wish to make this political, YOU CAN BELIEVE ME: I am NOT a Republican. I tell the truth, have extensive first-hand knowledge and care about our children.
3
@RealTRUTH
Processed starches that get "stuck" in the teeth for hours like crackers and Goldfish and potato chips are just as bad.
2
@Sandy
Thank you. There's so much more that can be said against simple carbs, but not enough space to publish the text necessary, nor would anyone read it for being so long. But you are quite correct.
3
If you're giving your kids artificially sweetened drinks, chances are good that you are not offering them a plate of kale any time soon. In the end kids eat what their parents eat, no matter how much food education they get at school (here in NYC most schools have some sort of nutrition education as part of gym).
Pediatricians should help parents learn about proper nutrition - maybe even give out a standard info booklet (assuming the food industry doesn't write it).
6
@figure8 not true. I drink Diet Coke from time to time, and I let my kid have it too. He happily eats kale salads all the time, but he likes Brussels sprouts even better. Quit moralizing.
7
@Jennifer Did not intend to moralize. You are from Toronto, which is a lot more advanced than most places in the United States. We have a huge food problem here, with food industries targeting kids and parents. When I travel to other countries, I see that people are much better with feeding themselves and their kids and understand moderation. Americans - not so much. I give my kids soda once in a blue moon as a treat (though not diet, as I'm still skeptical about artificial sweeteners). Visit most American towns and see the obesity and lack of food awareness and you'll understand my comment...
2
This is remarkably uninformative article. We are all a little stupider for having read it.
15
This topic will always bring out a huge variety of uninformed opinions and fearmongering.
1
Why isn't sugar considered a nonnutritive sweetener?
1
@Catalina
Legal reasons.
You can't patent "sugar". You can patent lab-created artificial "sweeteners".
Also comes in handy for advertising because you can advertise something as "sugar free" when in fact it's loaded with artificial sweeteners.
@Catalina Sugar is a natural food. It provides thermal calories.
1
I agree with those who say stevia shouldn't be lumped in here.
3
@Marie To me Stevia is the most suspect of these sweeteners. Stevia's sweetness is due to two chemicals, both glycosides that are metabolised by the liver. The long term effects of exposing the liver to these chemicals is what would concern me.
4
Given the amount of nutritional information available, I can't understand why parents would even consider giving kids sugary or artificial sweetened drinks. Adapting to the constant barrage of sweetness in foods-beverages is a surrogate for poor health & mental development, a signal for future diseases such as diabetes.
We taught our child that pop colas, etc are acidic and can be used as toilet bowl cleaner. We don't buy juices with added sweet stuff, from a cane field or an organic-chemistry manufacturer. We read the fine print on labels, not the "nutritional information" which is next to useless. We want to know the actual contents of the food or drink. (Example: "organic cane sugar' is still refined sugar minus the pesticide residue). Pick your poison.
We taught our kid about addicting techniques of food chemistry and advertising and now he see through it. I didn't know these things when I was kid and neither did my parents.
But there is a lot more information now, and we just have to wade through it, take the time to read the fine print on labels, get to know the brands which contain truly nutritious foods, and train our pallets to enjoy natural food, including fruit and vegetable.
6
NPR recently mentioned that 10% of adults in the US have type 2 diabetes.
This isn’t surprising when considering that sugar in the form of high fructose corn syrup is an ingredient in a wide range of everyday food such as bread.
I believe that the source of this diabetes explosion is a direct result of corn industry lobbyists who are constantly looking for new ways to Increase their sales. The result is that high fructose corn syrup shows up in a mind boggling array of processed food and drinks.
The prevalence of corn syrup leads to diabetes, obesity, high blood pressure and kidney failure.
It’s time to take action on the direct link between the corn industry, escalating diabetes and the resulting spiraling healthcare costs.
7
@FredB ....The difference in using high fructose corn syrup or sucrose (table sugar) as a sweetener is minuscule. Both deliver fructose and glucose to the liver in near equal amounts. If anything there is a slight edge to high fructose corn syrup in delivering fewer calories.
3
Why are we looking at sugar only? The amount of carbohydrates we consume - especially "simple" carbohydrates - is way out of balance. Even "whole wheat" is not really the whole grain most of the time. Potatoes, rice, pasta and breads are an over-sized part of our diets. Replacing a few tablespoons of sugar with sweeteners isn't the change most of us need.
19
@Jennifer Lavoie As a type 2 diabetic I can assure you that removing sugar from ones diet, all by itself, makes a huge difference in one's glucose control.
11
@Jennifer Lavoie When I drink Coke Zero my blood suger spikes very high.
1
@Gary Aronoff ...If that is true you should then subsequently go into a hypoglycemic crash.
Why was the research showing that artificial sweeteners KILL the microbiome included? This is the most important recent finding that is often overlooked.
5
I see a lot of flaws in this or simplistic gathering of information.
1. Lumping non-nutritive in the same category as artificial. Stevia and monkfruit are natural, though some products mix other ingredients rather than a pure source. (Ie Truvia)
2. When looking at this issue we need to look at the food industries use of corn derived products in place of cane sugar. Almost all corn is GMO in the US.
3. Consumers need to learn to read the labels and be aware of what they are consuming.
4. There are studies that show that artificial sweeteners have no effect on weight loss.
5. Our obesity epidemic is multi-factorial but pumping our children with artificial sweeteners (chemicals) is not the answer.
6. Sadly non-GMO, organic, food is more expensive than industry products.
8
@Teresa ...."Stevia and monkfruit are natural,"...all of which means absolutely nothing. Chemicals, natural or synthetic, are still chemicals.
"Almost all corn is GMO in the US."....People who are concerned about GMOs would benefit from a short course in genetics. The only significant difference between GMO corn and non-GMO corn is that GMO corn requires lower levels of herbicide and lower fuel consumption.
6
@Teresa most monkfruit sweeteners are blended with erythritol. Which is from corn.
You say "People who are concerned about GMOs would benefit from a short course in genetics. The only significant difference between GMO corn and non-GMO corn is that GMO corn requires lower levels of herbicide and lower fuel consumption." My understanding is the opposite. That is that the purpose of the lab created GMO crops are that they are designed to be more resistant to herbicides and pesticides, thus enabling the grower to spray a much greater amount of these chemicals indiscriminately to the weeds growing alongside the crops without damaging the GMO crop.
Why stevia is shown on the same photo as artificial sweeteners? This is extremely unprofessional and misleading.
I completely lost one tooth due to sugar and damaged several others. Sugary food made me close to a heart attack.
On the other hand, I had virtually no issues with stevia, have been taking it for over 10 years already.
27
@John ...."This is extremely unprofessional and misleading".....Stevia is added as a no-caloric sweetener. How is that supposed to be different. And give us this, but it is natural. So is strychnine and tetrodotoxin.
2
Nothing good comes from shoving chemicals into a developing body & brain.
10
@Terry
“Chemicals” hmm..
9
@Terry
Literally every single food item or drink you ingest is composed of...... a cocktail mix of chemicals.
7
@Terry
I sense that you might have skipped that Grade 9 science lecture that everything is "chemicals".
5
Anything sweetened artificially, and by this I mean taking any substance and adding either natural sugar or artificial "sugar" to it, all to entice the human monkey to maximally consume, is just flat out unnecessary. Yet it is done. You have to go to the core question in attempting to deal with the entire mess.
Why?
I'll tell you why (from my point of view). Consider; the whole intent of the food industry is to get you to consume as much of their product as possible. Theirs is a profit maximizing (for share-holder value) focus after all. So they cater to our biological cravings with little regard to true nutrition. Consumers get stuffed like Christmas turkeys; while shareholders giggle in pleasure.
The only surprise in all of this is that we're surprised that the majority of us are now so obese! Pull your snout out of the trough and think about it. Think through what you are doing.
What else did you expect when the industry who feeds you sees you as little more than product consuming machines? Saintly behavior?
If you want to change this then I suggest you push away from their feeding trough. Besides, you're done. You're stuffed (at this point) and never needed most of it to begin with..so get on that Pelotron and start pedaling for all your worth.
John~
American Net'Zen
9
Depends on which sweeteners are called sugar. Otherwise
all studies are nonsense.
This doesn't even begin to address the fact that sugar alcohols (sorbitol, erythritol) are not digestible by many people and cause gastric distress and diarrhea.
17
I have no connection with the industry but I do know that Splenda was studied for over 20 years before it was approved as a PMA (like a drug) by the FDA in 1998. Instead of claiming there are no studies, the author could have parsed through the 20 years of double blind, placebo controlled studies of skinny and fat rats plus the 20 years of real world evidence since it was used in drinks safely and effectively but chose not to because having real data may not agree with her scare mongering.
23
One could argue that the reason RCTs show a positive effect and self-reporting does not is that people are unaware of how many calories they consume, period. The compounds being studied are not causing paradoxical effects; rather, people who consume NNSs are not aware of how small a role this one swap in dietary practice makes. Such products never include “part of a healthier diet” caveats. Sodas in particular downplay the difference between their sugary and NNS products. We grab our diet soda, maybe bask in a brief health halo, then proceed to consume the frozen pizzas and high-calorie foods many Americans favor.
We see this precise same effect occur in exercise: only Herculean efforts in running, weight training, etc. correlate with any kind of significant weight loss, while most “normal” healthful and beneficial exercise regimens like walking and modest jogging correlate with weight flatlining (and sometimes even a bounce in weight gain).
This article includes the usual “diet Miranda warning” about teaching healthier behaviors and that more research is needed. But I also found the usual shifting of the burden to consumers, who are instructed to sift through inscrutable labels, eat plants, control portion size, and otherwise police children's diets against a landscape of ubiquitous snacks and fast food. Fine advice, but only for certain cul-de-sacs in California.
Dr Klass, thank you for beginning the piece with a debunking of the carcinogenicity/toxicity canard!
2
In the absence of evidence that artificial sweeteners actually lead to weight loss, it isn't surprising that there is also a dearth of research into their side effects.
The way that so many popular products have quietly replaced their sugar with substitutes is reminiscent of the way that OTC cold medicines replaced aspirin with acetaminophen a couple decades ago, leading to overdose problems.
1
I thought the brain could not differentiate betwee artificial and real sugar. Therefore, artificial sugar (like real sugar) causes more hunger and sugar cravings.
Can somebody provide more details?
3
@Benni I have read that too. Insulin would be secreted to deal with the apparent sugar intake, which would lead to glycemic problems. At least, that’s what I heard.
I grew up in a diabetic house hold and have been on sweeteners instead of sugar since I was very young. The concern was to reduce sugar intake so as to avoid late onset diabetes. I am about to turn 65. I am a very healthy person. I get a health check every year. I am very healthy to this day. I have no issues. I work out and have kept my weight steady through my adult life. I Have a 32 inch waist. I attribute this to little sugar in my diet. There has been a lot of consumption of sweeteners since their introduction. Literally tons. So where are the issues. They should have shown up by now. The number of people in this set is enormous. Where are the indicators of any issues. You can find many issues related to natural sugar abuse in the general public. Your article should be about keeping children from cane sugar, corn syrup, etc. These are the real concerns for children.
14
I do understand youur points, but suggest that the differences between artificial sweetners be pointed out as well. Stevia evokes a significantly lower glycemic response than non-natural sweetners like Sweet'n Low. Calories are not the only consideration.
9
So basically this article says that artificial sweeteners have not been shown to be harmful to one’s health. Yet, they recommend eating something sweet once a week using real sugar. And to eat mainly vegetables at meals with fruit in appropriate portion sizes, not a full sized plate. It really bothers some people when something that tastes good isn’t bad for you. Eating sweet foods is enjoyable. C’est la vie!
2
@Jo McG No one is recommending eating something sweet once a week with real sugar. What the quoted doctor recommended was limiting sweets to once a week. That's not the same as recommending it.
6
@Jo McG - "Eating sweet foods is enjoyable. C’est la vie!"
Most of my health concerns stem from a childhood of being glued to the television watching Julia Child.
The moms didn't seem to mind this Halloween when their kids got honey-roasted nuts, banana-walnut bread, and oatmeal-cranberry cookies instead of candy. I knew that whatever the trick-or-treaters didn't eat would end up in my belly so I wasn't about to buy bags of crappy candy.
If the point is that we need good science, who could disagree? Let's start with the fact that not all sugar substitutes are alike. While some may be "non-nutritive" that wouldn't apply to aspartame that is aspartic acid-phenylalanine i.e. amino acids, i.e. nutrients. One fact: When it comes to op-eds about health and medicine, either facts or good science seem scarce.
8
I don't think artificial anything is "good" for kids; however, most "foods" served to children are monstrosities already.
As a parent I only give two beverages: water and unsweetened green tea. I also give one dessert of my child's choice around tea time and occasionally (parties, etc.) another small dessert after dinner. She asks for more sugar and I simply say no. This is not the easiest way to parent, but my daughter is free of the weight, health and social problems I had from being a chubby juice and sugar fed child.
13
Consider just not eating sweetened foods. Much as getting off salt takes some getting used to, it can be done - it's the same with sugar. Cakes, candies, sodas, and the like aren't things we were designed to eat.
8
@George I agree, though I think this is easier for adults to control for themselves than parents for kids- because kids can always find sources of sugar outside the home. Personally, I find it easier to avoid a food entirely than to try to satisfy myself with a facsimile of it. Artificial sweeteners are still sweet and still are appetizing for people with sweet tooths. But if you reduce or eliminate those foods, you can retrain your tastes. Again, though, this seems like something an adult is in a more natural position to do.
1
@caitlin By the time I was a teenager, my sweet tooth was uncontrollable. Now, at age 70, I do not eat dessert at home, but I have trouble resisting desserts at dinner parties. There may be adults who can control their sweet tooth completely, but my life was saved (as were my teeth) by using aspartame in place of sugar. I have been able to retrain my behavior to limit my consumption of sweets, but I simply cannot eliminate the urge.
I believe we should treat sweeteners like methadone for sweet addicts. Some of us may be on them for life, but at least we are not suffering the harms that sugar causes.
5
I use both stevia and monk fruit products, neither of which are artificial sweeteners. Monk fruit has been used for millennia; so there should be plenty of evidence that monk fruit is safe and effective as a sugar substitute. Ask the people in Southeast Asia.
6
I read once that those sugar substitutes are modified (add a little artificial sweeteners) to accommodate westerners palates. Most of them have after tastes that westerners wouldn’t like. Given
example in article were truvia sweeteners and acai fruits, they both have been adjusted with added sugar !
4
@Malaika
I've never noticed an aftertaste, especially with monk fruit. I use SweetLeaf brand stevia liquid for beverages, and I use Lakanto brand monk fruit (that looks like granulated sugar) when cooking/baking.
The key is using the appropriate amount, especially with stevia. Lakanto monk fruit is pretty much a 1:1 ratio with sugar.
I just checked labels, and neither brand lists an artificial sweetener. Lakanto does include non-GMO erythritol, but that's a natural ingredient (not synthetic/artificial).
If interested in switching, try different brands until you find your preference.
5
@Donna M Nieckula Both of those sweeteners taste so unpleasant to me, I'd rather not eat anything sweet at all.
5
Stevia comes from the stevia plant and so isn’t an artificial sweetener. I ate stevia leaves once, and indeed, they are naturally sweet.
7
This is a complex topic, like all topics pertaining to human nutrition.
Excess sugar is pretty well known now to be a negative health factor. Some humans tolerate it better then others.... which just makes it difficult to do objective studies of statistical significance. Sweet flavor is something most human pallets enjoy and crave to one degree or another. As such.. over consumption can be a real health issue.
Non-nutritional sweeteners appeal to the senses in terms of sweetness (though some tastebud resist the difference in taste they can present). As such... large consumption feeds the sweetness factor of our senses and over time can cause an addiction of sorts to very sweet food intake. Is that a bad thing? It is if it means all the things being consumed with the sweetener have a calorie load that is greater than normal or required.
And then we have groups like The Sugar Association who do everything in their power to turn the public against artificial sweeteners, while promoting the use of more sugar in products. They are one of the key lobbys behind "healthy low fat foods" being promoted.. even though they replace calorie load one for one between fats and sugar.
Consumers are manipulated in every single one of these ongoing health and nutrition debates... endlessly.
7
@Chuck
Absolutely agree. And yet here is another article of very little substance that shifts the burden of optimal nutrition to the consumer, who is chastened to exercise, eat plants, and moderate portion size. Common sense and moderation (let alone helicopter parenting) is all well and good for some, but fails at the public level.
Although they are classified as "nonnutritive sweeteners,” is it fair to include monk fruit sweetener and stevia in with "artificial" sweeteners such as aspartame, saccharine, and sucralose? I don't know the answer to this question, but based on some reading I have done, it would seem that if one wants a sweetened product, one is better off with natural sweeteners such as monk fruit sweetener and stevia, or sugar from natural sources consumed in moderation.
I have been diagnosed as "pre-diabetic." After having cut back (but not eliminated) my sugar intake, and substituted small amounts of monk fruit sweetener and stevia for artificial sweeteners, my blood sugar levels have dropped to the point where they are high but safely within the range of normal for my age and weight.
17
From my study of one, I can say that on calories in/calories out stand point these sweaters do make a difference. However, it still get you used to consuming sweet things. It seems to activate the same reward pathways in in the brain as actual sugars. Which in turn makes you want to consume more sweet things to sustain or achieve that high. While I can not speak for anyone else. I find that when I just consume less sweet things in general, being natural or artificial, I tend not have the same urges to snack. Even if the snack itself I would end up having is not sweet. I also find it much easier for me to overeat sweet things, vs savory or salty things. So my suggesting would be to just eat less sweet things in general, and when you do you are better off with a slow release of sugar when it is coupled with fiber like you get with whole fruit, vs candy, cookie, cake, pie, doughnuts, and sweet beverages.
8
as the article makes clear, there is NO good science to suggest that artificial sweeteners have long term positive or negative effects. Is it prudent to think that young children are better off with not sweetened drinks as opposed to sweetened? absolutely! However, when I am faced with teens and preteens that are significantly overweight who seem unwilling or unlikely to stop imbibing sweetened drinks, then I am sure that artificial sweeteners are better for them than continuing to intake so many sugar calories.
as for those who will tell you that they absolutely know the answer to the safety of artificial sweeteners, they are stating opinions, not scientific facts.
12
No, they are not good for kids.
The tongue senses sweet, sends message to the brain saying lots of sugar is heading our way.
Brain and Gastrointestinal system nervous systems dump digestive enzymes and insulin ahead of the arrival of the sweet (which will not come, as it is fake sugar) , and uses up baseline glucose in the blood stream, leaving the kid hungry for more.
Helping change the cravings is more important than the fake stuff. Just don't bring the junk in the house, set a good example and things can change. A snack can be an apple/ banana/ peanut butter etc. Not packaged sugary snacks or salty snacks only.
28
The "natural is always better" crowd is always trying new ways to make the case against non-sugar sweeteners. I was fortunate in that my kids' pediatrician took the position that it was better for my children to ingest artificial sweeteners than to eat the sugar that they would otherwise eat or drink, given the risks of obesity and diabetes.
Natural is not always better. It is a good slogan, but like many good slogans does not necessarily state the truth. Despite every effort to tie artificial sweeteners to various diseases, they remain unscathed, while it is indisputable that excessive amounts of sugar are bad for you.
The natural is better folks would like us to believe that deciding not to consume artificial sweeteners is a moral choice. It isn't. And incidentally, what if we could protect more land from being cleared to grow sugar cane? Might we all not be morally obligated to use artificial sweeteners as a way to help save the planet? And while we're at it, artificial sweeteners are easier and use less fuel to ship than sugar, being lighter, and require no fertilizer or insecticides to produce.
The entire debate is far more complex than the instinctual response that sugar is better because it's natural. A lot of natural stuff is bad for you, and sugar may not be better for individuals or for the planet.
24
@Barbara8101
You're overlooking a major difference: Our species has been eating natural sugars for 200,000 years -- as did the species before it -- and artificial sweeteners for decades.
*Could* natural sweeteners be bad for you? Sure, though there's no evidence for it as long as it's consumed in natural form, e.g., in fruits and vegetables.
*Could* artificial sweeteners be good for you? Sure -- in this case, we just don't know. So you are conducting an experiment on yourself and on your children.
Personally, I'm content to stick with what nature has done, which is to say the foods that we evolved to eat. There is certainly no shortage of those, and you won't get fat if you eat them in unprocessed form.
11
@Barbara8101 Why not cut back on sugar period instead of switching to artificial sweeteners? Your kids will get used to it. Buy better quality chocolate: many actually have less sugar than cheap chocolate.
1
The biggest problem in nutrition studies is that there are no rigorous, controlled double blinded studies such as with drugs which convincingly prove or disprove a hypothesis. Therefore all conclusions which get reported usually reflect the biases of those reporting and/or the financial incentives of those sponsoring the studies. Nutritional supplements, vitamins, etc. are a multi-billion dollar industry. It is high time the sponsors of these products be forced to seek a higher standard in safety, efficacy and long term use including the reporting of adverse events.
5
Nonnutritive sweeteners are many times sweeter than sugar (stevia, 150 times; aspartame, 200 times; saccharine, 300 times; sucralose, 600 times) so I’m not really sure what one might learn from a listing of their small amounts on a food label. It might even be confusing if parents thought they should be comparing absolute amounts across products, unless the units were converted to some kind of “sugar-equivalent.” It is better, as Dr. Baker-Smith notes, to try to limit the consumption of foods and beverages high in sugar, period.
5
As a retired pediatrician, let me say a firm no. Until we know everything about real food, don’t give your kids fake food. The exception is for Type I diabetics looking to fit in to social eating.
And do think like a child. Before fluoride, I had lots of cavities and remember well being “taken off sugar.” It hurt my feelings (I was defective ... in my kid mind). It made me sneak sugar.
And for pity’s sake, shut up the near-constant pseudo-scientific rant about “nutrition” at the table. Serve a variety of things and don’t badger kids to eat more than one bite. Celebrate stuff. Tell dumb jokes. Make it criticism free. Make kids WANT to come and gather. Involve kids in putting on the meal. Have a fruit bowl on the table for dessert.
If your kiddo’s chubby, don’t serve family style and load up on the veggies he does like. Give him the small potato, but don’t make anything off limits.
73
@Dr. Dixie
Our calories were limited at the table. She made one pound of spaghetti with salad. We ate one bowl of cereal. My mother bought one bag of cookies for the five of us per week. One bag of chips. None of us was overweight as children. I did the same with our five children. None of them was overweight as children. Our adult children with children follow the same simple habits. None of their eight children is overweight.
Our neighbor frequently has her granddaughter over. She monitors everything she eats and has certain foods either off limits or in very small amounts. Her granddaughter gorges herself when the grandmother is not looking. She IS overweight.
My cousin is obese. Her children were not allowed any sweets in the home since their mother couldn't control herself. Both were overweight as children, one became anorexic. In high school these two girls decided to take up running. They soon got control of their weight and so excelled at running that both got track scholarships to college and one was an Olympic hopeful. As adults they are both a healthy weight. They eat anything they want but in moderation.
Liberals tend to overreact with "knee-jerk" zero tolerance that often backfires on us. It also tends to ostracize our children. I know parents of young children who won't let their kids attend a McDonald's birthday party or have a school birthday cupcake. Making foods taboo tends to backfire.
It's not that we eat the wrong foods. It's that we eat too much.
7
@sharon
"Liberals tend to overreact with "knee-jerk" zero tolerance that often backfires on us. It also tends to ostracize our children."
If that's not a stereotypical statement based on nonsense, I don't know what is.
6
@sharon And conservatives tend to have really broad and simplistic ideas about what liberals think.
6