Review Article

Sugar or Sweetener?

Authors: Arshag D. Mooradian, MD

Abstract

Human beings have a natural craving for sweets. The intensity of this craving varies with genetic and environmental factors; however, excessive use of table sugar has been associated with adverse health outcomes, including increased risk of obesity, diabetes mellitus, and cardiovascular disease. As such, the World Health Organization has called for restricting sugar consumption to less than 5% of total energy intake. For those who have a “sweet tooth,” implementing these guidelines is not easy. Hence, the interest in alternative sweeteners. There are eight high-intensity sweeteners that are either approved by the Food and Drug Administration or designated as generally regarded to be safe. The safety of the currently available sweeteners has been questioned. Large cohort studies have reported a positive correlation between sweetener use with weight gain and metabolic risk. A recent meta-analysis, however, concluded that using low- or no-calorie sweetener was associated with small improvements in body weight and cardiometabolic risk factors without evidence of harm. Nevertheless, the World Health Organization advises against the use of nonsugar sweeteners. The biological effects of natural sweeteners such as steviol, monk fruit extract, tagatose, allulose, and sweet proteins (eg, brazzien, miraculin, thaumatin) are not well studied. Eating less sugar is a prudent thing to do, but for people with diabetes mellitus and those at risk of diabetes mellitus, diversifying the type of the sweetener and limiting the quantity may be reasonable.

 

This content is limited to qualifying members.

Existing members, please login first

If you have an existing account please login now to access this article or view purchase options.

Purchase only this article ($25)

Create a free account, then purchase this article to download or access it online for 24 hours.

Purchase an SMJ online subscription ($75)

Create a free account, then purchase a subscription to get complete access to all articles for a full year.

Purchase a membership plan (fees vary)

Premium members can access all articles plus recieve many more benefits. View all membership plans and benefit packages.

References

1. Babu KSD, Janakiraman V, Palaniswamy H, et al. A short review on sugarcane: its domestication, molecular manipulations and future perspectives. Genet Resour Crop Evol 2022;69:2623–2643.
 
2. The Honey Association/British Honey Importers and Packers Association. A brief history of honey. https://www.honeyassociation.com/about-honey/history. Accessed February 1, 2024.
 
3. Hwang L-D, Zhu G, Breslin PAS, et al. A common genetic influence on human intensity ratings of sugars and high-potency sweeteners. Twin Res Hum Genet 2015;18:361–367.
 
4. Mooradian AD, Smith M, Tokuda M. The role of artificial and natural sweeteners in reducing the consumption of table sugar: a narrative review. Clin Nutr ESPEN 2017;18:1–8.
 
5. World Health Organization. Healthy diet. https://www.who.int/news-room/factsheets/detail/healthy-diet#:~:text=Less%20than%2010%25%20of%20total% 20energy%20intake%20from%20free%20sugars,additional%20health% 20benefits%20(7). Published April 29, 2020. Accessed February 1, 2024.
 
6. US Department of Agriculture; US Department of Health and Human Services. Dietary guidelines for Americans. https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/. Accessed February 1, 2024.
 
7. Stamataki NS, Scott C, Elliott R, et al. Stevia beverage consumption prior to lunch reduces appetite and total energy intake without affecting glycemia or attentional bias to food cues: a double-blind randomized controlled trial in healthy adults. J Nutr 2020;150:1126–1134.
 
8. Swithers SE. Artificial sweeteners produce the counterintuitive effect of inducing metabolic derangements. Trends Endocrinol Metab 2013;24:431–441.
 
9. Lindseth GN, Coolahan SE, Petros TV, et al. Neurobehavioral effects of aspartame consumption. Res Nurs Health 2014;37:185–193.
 
10. Walton RG, Hudak R, Green-Waite RJ. Adverse reactions to aspartame: double-blind challenge in patients from a vulnerable population. Biol Psychiatry 1993;34:13–17.
 
11. Berry C, Brusick D, Cohen SM, et al. Sucralose non-carcinogenicity: a review of the scientific and regulatory rationale. Nutr Cancer 2016;68:1247–1261.
 
12. Arroyo-Quiroz C, Brunauer R, Alavez S. Sugar-sweetened beverages and cancer risk: a narrative review. Nutr Cancer 2022;74:3077–3095.
 
13. Chazelas E, Srour B, Desmetz E, et al. Sugary drink consumption and risk of cancer: results from NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort. BMJ 2019:366:l2408.
 
14. Witkowski M, Nemet I, Alamri H, et al. The artificial sweetener erythritol and cardiovascular event risk. Nat Med 2023;29:710–718.
 
15. Mossavar-Rahmani Y, Kamensky V, Manson JE, et al. Artificially sweetened beverages and stroke, coronary heart disease, and all-cause mortality in the Women’s Health Initiative. Stroke 2019;50:555–562.
 
16. Chazelas E, Debras C, Srour B, et al. Sugary drinks, artificially-sweetened beverages, and cardiovascular disease in the NutriNet-Sante cohort. J Am Coll Cardiol 2020;76:2175–2177.
 
17. Malik VS, Li Y, Pan A, et al.. Long-term consumption of sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened beverages and risk of mortality in US adults. Circulation 2019;139:2113–2125.
 
18. McGlynn ND, Khan TA, Wang L, et al. Association of low- and no-calorie sweetened beverages as a replacement for sugar-sweetened beverages with body weight and cardiometabolic risk: a systematic review and metaanalysis. JAMA Netw Open 2022;5:e222092.
 
19. World Health Organization. WHO advises not to use non-sugar sweeteners for weight control in newly released guideline. https://www.who.int/news/item/15-05-2023-who-advises-not-to-use-non-sugar-sweeteners-for-weight-control-in-newly-released-guideline. Published May 15, 2023. Accessed February 1, 2024.
 
20. Aspartame hazard and risk assessment results released. https://www.who.int/. Accessed June 6, 2024.
 
21. Franchi F, Yaranov DM, Rollini F, et al. Effects of D-allulose on glucose tolerance and insulin response to a standard oral sucrose load: results of a prospective randomized, crossover study. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care 2021;9:e001939.
 
22. Mooradian AD, Haas MJ, Onstead-Haas L, et al. Naturally occurring rare sugars are free radical scavengers and can ameliorate endoplasmic reticulum stress. Int J Vitam Nutr Res 2020;90:210–220.
 
23. Daniel H, Hauner H, Hortnef M, et al. Allulose in human diet: the knowns and the unknowns. Br J Nutr 2022;128:172–178.
 
24. Haas MJ, Parekh S, Kalidas P, et al. Insulin mimetic effect of D-allulose on apolipoprotein A-I gene. J Food Biochem 2022;46:e14064.
 
25. Mooradian AD, Haas MJ. Targeting high density lipoproteins: increasing de novo production vs. decreasing clearance. Drugs 2015;75:713–722.
 
26. St-Pierre P, Pilon G, Dumais V, et al. Comparative analysis of maple syrup to other natural sweeteners and evaluation of their metabolic responses in healthy rats. J Funct Foods 2014;11:460–471.
 
27. Wan C, Yuan T, Li L, et al. Maplexins, new α-glucosidase inhibitors from red maple (Acer rubrum) stems. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 2012; 22:597–600.
 
28. Mohammed, F, Sibley P, Abdulwali N, et al. Nutritional, pharmacological, and sensory properties of maple syrup: a comprehensive review. Heliyon 2023;9:e19216.
 
29. Mooradian AD. In search for an alternative to sugar to reduce obesity. Int J Vitam Nutr Res 2019;89:113–117. .
 
30. Reyes MM, Castura JC, Hayes JE. Characterizing dynamic sensory properties of nutritive and nonnutritive sweeteners with temporal check-allthat-apply. J Sens Stud 2017;32:e12270.
 
31. Joseph JA, Akkermans S, Nimmegeers P, et al. Bioproduction of the recombinant sweet protein thaumatin: current state of the art and perspectives. Front Microbiol 2019;10:695.