Image Map

non nutritive sweetners are one of the best dieting tools of the 19th century, and ofcourse today, yet stubborn fools cling to their feear and remain Obese instead of getting healthy

Non nutritive sweeteners are one of the best dieting tools of the 19th century, and of course today. Stubborn fools however cling to their fear and remain Obese instead of getting healthy

Year after year I have had to hear the whining of uneducated self proclaimed nutritional “experts” with the highest level of education is 9th grade chemistry they finally passed in 12th grade. Of course these and their less intelligent friends make up the bulk of people who argue about nutrition. One of the favorite opinions of the ignorant is that non-nutritive sweeteners are the devil, and you’re better off with “natural sugar”.

Natural Sugar: As Accurate a Statement as Dry Water

Natural cane sugar like in that Pepsi Throwback bullshit is nothing more than sucrose. Sucrose is just a glucose and a fructose molecule. High fructose corn syrup is just that, fructose and glucose, dissolved in water (corn syrup). Thats it. the difference is high fructose corn syrup is from corn, and cane sugar is from a sugar cane. Natural? Bitch please, there is nothing natural about it. The sugar cane is chopped down by huge agricultural machines (not found in nature) then burnt to black ash so that the Hawaii sky is blocked out by huge acrid clouds of black smoke (not found in nature). The beautiful rain-forests of Hawaii are covered in this black soot. Then this ash is crushed and bleached in machines so it looks white (not natural, not natural) then packaged in non biodegradable plastic containers (NOOOOT Natural!!!). All so that Americans can get fatter, faster, and leave a bigger corpse for their CostCo coffins.

So please, before you refer to sugar as natural just bury your head up your ass, it’s as natural as 500cc breast implants.

Sugar is the worst of my Foods To Avoid. Sugar has calories, empty calories. It also spikes insulin and makes you obese. Very few humans are under fatted. Chances are if you’re american in 2014 you’re overweight. Obesity is a life threatening illness. So in all reality, this “natural” sugar is toxic poison. This nonsense it’s a “better choice” is from sugar addicts who probably also push the “big is beautiful” slogan as a justification for letting go and becoming obese.
Being obese is not a lifestyle, its a lack of several key behaviors which are necessary for survival. Being obese is the most likely reason an overweight person will die, so the more sugar you consume the closer you are to death.  How on earth could a calorie free alternative be worse for an already overweight person or even more ridiculous, A diabetic? Diabetes type 2 is a polite way of saying end stage obesity. If you don’t put the sugar down, you will lose your kidneys, your sight, your feet, your erections and soon, your life.

If you still want “natural” sugar then have at it. This world is overpopulated anyway, let the smartest and most disciplined survive! One of the best parts of nature is when the unfit remove themselves from existence due to stupidity. It’s for the betterment of the species. Like a self cleaning gene pool.

Obesity Key:

Healthy + sugar + time = Overweight
Overweight + sugar + time = Obese
Obese + sugar + time = Diabetes type II
Diabetes II + sugar + time = Blindness, impotence, amputation, and death

So if you’re 19 and love to bake, eventually it will be cats scratching at your door to get out and not boys knocking at your door to get in.

The only useful or intelligent time to have sugar is mid workout if you’re prone to smelling like ammonia while you lift. Or during the Anabolic Window

Non Nutritive Sweeteners and Their Alleged Role In Obesity

No surprise here, people don’t want to be held accountable for their actions. It isn’t the large Little Caesars pizza you had that made you fat, its the diet coke you got with it. It’s society’s fault for making delicious food available isn’t it? Is it any surprise that people who have destroyed their bodies and health with self indulgence can’t accept it? That their youth is gone and all they have to show for it is strech marks.

12 studies were included. 6 of them studied the effects of adding non nutritive sweeteners to peoples pre existing diets. The addition of non-nutritive sweeteners resulted in increased Weight, but the other studies showed that decreasing current intake of non-nutritive sweeteners did not show a decrease in BMI. The effects on already obese people are less dramatic than the addition of NNS to lean people.

This sounds like if you add non nutritive sweeteners to a lean person’s diet then they gain weight faster the more they consume. This indicates it does cause an insulin release or that they stimulate appetite. It would make sense that taking them out of a diet won’t change much if they are sedentary, their metabolism will just slow down if they eat less, it won’t just burn fat off for no reason. To burn fat they would have to have 3 things: the knowledge of how to efficiently exercise for the purpose of fat loss (1% of the population), the knowledge of how to eat for fat loss, not necessarily health (.01% of the population and 0% of those unfortunate to have nutritional training), and the willpower to actually try (10% of population).

This means If a person was to find a personal trainer that had the requisite knowledge (10% of that population, 70% of NPC veteran athletes) Then only 10% of people have what it takes on the inside to make changes to themselves. The other 90% blame their kids, or their job, or their family for their failures. It is a rare sound indeed hearing someone say “I’m sorry, but i just don’t have what it takes to succeed. My parents told me they loved me even when I failed so I grew up thinking people will love me no matter what, even if i suck at everything I do. Boy is real life a rude awakening”

Participation medals give a terrible false sense of accomplishment.

Do you see now why removing non-nutritive sweeteners won’t decrease BMI by itself? The 90% that got fat in the first place, they are the least likely population to have any of the 3 necessary components to lose body fat. They just switch from non-nutritive sweeteners to likely more carbs and would likely gain weight over time.


The Usual Suspects

Color coded for your convenience, I like to use all three. Best of all worlds.

Color coded for your convenience, I like to use all three. Best of all worlds.

Here is the list of patsies that sucrose blames for its ravaging destruction of mankind, and the mushification of your children’s brains.

I’ve ordered them best to worst here:
Stevia > Sucralose > Aspartame > Ace K > Saccharin

Sucralose (Splenda, Yellow packets):

Is sucralose safe?

“In determining the safety of sucralose, the FDA reviewed data from more than 110 studies in humans and animals. Many of the studies were designed to identify possible toxic effects, including carcinogenic, reproductive, and neurological effects. No such effects were found, and FDA’s approval is based on the finding that sucralose is safe for human consumption.”

“in the 2-year rodent bioassays … there was no evidence of carcinogenic activity for either sucralose or its hydrolysis products …”[1]

Need I say more?

Sucralose is a trichlorinated galacto-sucrose. Basically its a galactose bound to a glucose and a ribose with 3 chlorines attached. It’s 200 times sweeter than Sucrose, 2 times more than other leading sweeteners. It is not absorbed and has no calories, it is packaged with maltodextrin in packets though! maltodextrin is a string of dextrose molecules which tastes mild like a starch but as soon as it touches your tongue gets dissolved into sugar. The FDA allows anything with 4 calories (like “non-nutritive sweetener packets”) to be labeled as 0 calories.

So to our government in all its grand shitheadedness; 4 = 0. maybe that’s why i’m wary of doing my own taxes, our government employees must have learned core math. The math I use is thousands of years old, and is still popular today because its math, it doesn’t change with public opinion.

Of course these packets need to be labeled as carbs = 1g, sugar = 1g, and calories = 4.

Aspartame (nutrasweet/Equal, pink or blue packets):

This is the red headed stepchild of the family. Why?

“Aspartame has been found to be safe for human consumption by more than ninety countries worldwide,[2] with FDA officials describing aspartame as “one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency has ever approved” and its safety as “clear cut”, [3] but has been the subject of several controversies, hoaxes[4] and health scares.[5]”

Aspartame is made from 2 amino acids. It is stable in solution at a pH of 4.3 (like soda pop) but not at other pHs. Additionally it gets toxic if you cook with it, but being packaged with maltodextrin helps with that. Clearly how that dumb habit started.

“…and studies of metabolism suggest it is not possible to ingest enough aspartic acid and glutamate through food and drink to levels that would be expected to be toxic.[6]”

Thats the funniest sentence all day. I read it like this “ We can’t imagine anyone eating that much junk food to actually get the 1% methanol concentration and the 1% absorption to force blood concentrations to toxic levels of methanol. But we are dealing with the most gluttonous culture to ever exist in this place or any other since the dawn of time. America in 2014 Literally has the most wastefully consumptive people to ever exist so if it could happen, its going to happen here.”

Less than 1% of aspartame is absorbed and 200 mg/kilogram would still not create an appreciable blood level. Considering you use 1/200th as much aspartame as sugar for the same level of sweetness that would be the equivalent of someone eating 400g of sugar assuming an 100kg human. That’s 1600 calories. So these morons who claim “natural” sugar is better than aspartame are saying that its better to have 400g of sugar, and all the incredible amount of insulin that comes with it, and 1600 calories than a harmless blend of normal amino acids which do not enter your “body” just pass right through you and have no calories. 1600 calories a day would be a pound of blubber every 2 days. Eating that much sugar you would gain 180 lbs a year.

Ace K:

Like the other non nutritive sweeteners Ace K is about 200 times sweeter than sugar. Like saccharin it has a slightly bitter after taste. Kraft patented a modification on Ace K which takes the aftertaste away.

A rat study did show that Ace K increased insulin levels in a dose dependent fashion.

Unlike other non-nutritive sweeteners Ace-K is not generally sold as a recognized brand or “color” packet of sugar substitute.

As far as safety goes:
“60 rats were given acesulfame K for 40 weeks, making up as much as 3% of their total diet (which would be equivalent to a human consuming 1,343 12-oz cans of artificially sweetened soft drinks every day). No sign indicated these (or lower) levels of acesulfame K increased the rats’ risk of cancer or other neoplasms. “

Stevia (Truvia, white and green packets):

This is a semi natural sweetener extracted from the Stevia Rebaudiana plant found in
South America. “Sweet leaf” has been used in tribal paraguay for over 500 years. 200-300 times sweeter than sucrose.

Stevia is:
*Heat stable – you can bake with it, not that you should be baking anyway.
*pH stable
*Not fermentable
*Has no significant effect on blood glucose, thus it has no calories or insulin mimicking or secreting effect.

Japan has been using it safely for decades.

Why is it so new to us if its so awesome? You guessed it, our government banned it for political reasons. Likely corrupt politicians receiving bribes from other companies’ lobbyists, smart ones who realized stevia is the superior sweetener.

Used in South America for 1,500 years it wasn’t named Stevia until the 16th century by a professor at the University of Valencia. Yes, people have had this for 500 years in our western scientific community. But the FDA banned it until 2008. Hmmmm, so it was safe for 500 years until aspartame was developed, now its safety is ‘questionable’? It was studied extensively in 1931 by 2 french chemists. They extracted the exact components that gave stevia its sweet taste. The exact structure was released in 1955.

This means a sugar alternative which is an extract from a plant not totally synthetic and is completely harmless has existed and was available for 60 years. Why not endorse it?

In the 1970s there was a scare about saccharin causing cancer, so Japan developed an alternative calorie free sweetener. And In 1971 Stevia was in production in japan. Now stevia is what they have been using in everything from their Coca Cola formulas to their table “sugar”. 40% of Japan’s sweetener market is stevia.

A 2011 review found that the use of stevia sweeteners as replacements for sugar might benefit diabetic patients because it is a non-caloric additive.[7]

Wait… you thought it was so toxic that it was banned until 2008, but by as little as 2011 you think its a good replacement for sugar? The other non nutritive sweeteners have been around for decades and the government has never acknowledged their superiority over “natural” sugar, but the one that was just unbanned is the frontrunner for the future? I smell bullshit. They clearly knew for years that stevia was the cat’s meow, and those greedy pockets just kept getting lined to keep it off the shelves.

Best part? Stevia wasn’t actually legalized, Coca Cola was allowed to release a chemically modified version which is sweeter and less healthy called Truvia! How ironic, if this represents anything it isn’t truth. By taking a healthy “natural” sweetener that’s calorie free and chemically modifying it just to be allowed to slip through a legal loophole in a law YOU created to keep your competitor, Pepsi-Cola out of the stevia market. But of course our government is sneaky. Like a good arms dealer it sells to both sides. Right after Coca Cola released Truvia (which is mostly Erythritol, a sugar alcohol) Pepsi was allowed to release its version Called Purvia! but just like Coke’s version wasn’t true, pepsi’s isn’t pure.

to recap: Japan develops a super sweetener that has all the best properties of all the sweeteners and none of the flaws AND its from a plant, not purely synthetic. for NO REASON AT ALL its illegal in the US until 2008. Then in 2009, Coca cola comes out with a less healthy version, but the original more natural version is still banned. Then right after Pepsi does the same thing.

Multiple versions and none as good as the real thing, Only in america would something scientists are suggesting is the new cure for diabetes be illegal.

Multiple versions and none as good as the real thing, Only in america would something scientists are suggesting is the new cure for diabetes be illegal.

It looks to me like Coke was bribing the government to keep stevia illegal until they adapted their Japanese formula to work with a synthetic version. Then bribed the US more to let it slip through a loophole in a ban they created.  Coke didn’t expect was the US government to be playing both sides and dealing with Pepsi as well. Now we have 2 versions of Stevia neither is pure, and neither is true and neither is as good as the real thing. Sounds like If I do a Stevia article it should be in the black market section along with other evils like Marijuana and testosterone. but Alcohol and Birth control pills are legal. So stupid, or corrupt. Hopefully Corrupt, at least you can manipulate evil people, stupid people are totally useless.



United States (as of December 2008):
Purified Rebaudioside A is allowed since December 2008 as a food additive (sweetener), sold under various trade names, and classified as “generally recognized as safe” (“GRAS”)
Stevia rebaudiana leaf and extracts are available as dietary supplements since 1995, but the 2008 FDA authorization does not extend to them, and they do not have GRAS status.

It seems other people put 2 and 2 together as well:
that’s a pretty nice way of saying what I came up with. If I read it first I would have been skeptical but I drew the same conclusion first so I see it as corroboration.

Saccharin (Sweet and Low, pink packets):

This was the first non nutritive sweetener to be widely used. In 1907 the lead chemist of the USDA had an argument with president Theodore Roosevelt. He claimed sugar was better than saccharin because saccharin did not provide the calories that sugar did. In that era people died from undereating not overeating like the gluttons of today. This was a bad thing not a good thing like now. president Roosevelt said: “Anybody who says saccharin is injurious to health is an idiot.”

4 years later in 1911 the government labeled foods that had saccharin added were “tampered” but in 1912 determined saccharin was not harmful.

In 1969 in response to public fears of Saccharin tests done on saccharin from the 1940’s were used to claim that Saccharin was indeed dangerous. The lab tests actually showed it wasn’t and the FDA was thwarted. Again they tried in 1972 but again they were unsuccessful due to a lack of evidence. This actually goes on and on for a long long time, hell, I’m defending it now.

Like Ace K this has been shown in extraordinary amounts to have an insulin secreting effect.

Nothing in this article or on this site should be considered medical advice or as an endorsement to violate any law of the country in which you reside. The information given is for fun and entertainment purposes only. All claims are 100% dependent upon proper diet and exercise. Please consult a medical practitioner prior to any diet and exercise program.