10 Alternatives to Sugar. Part 2

Jade Teta ND, CSCS

6. Agave Nectar- This is a sweet “honey like” product derived from the same plant used to make tequila. It has gotten a lot of publicity lately as a great alternative sweetener because it has a low glycemic index. However, if you look at this product more carefully you will find that it is 90% fructose or fruit sugar. Fructose found in fruit is not a problem because it comes along with high amounts of fiber and is diluted by the water in the fruit. In the case of Agave it is pure concentrated fructose. Fructose is an interesting molecule in terms of fat loss. It is low glycemic index because the glycemic index measures rise in blood glucose not rise in blood fructose. So the idea that it is low on the glycemic index is a little misleading. Fructose in high concentrations can be an issue for two reason. 1. Because it has less effect on insulin it hangs around in the bloodstream longer and acts as a reducing agent donating an electron to other molecules and possibly creating free radicals. 2. Although you may think that the low insulin production is good, fructose is NOT metabolized the same as glucose and without regulation by insulin can flood the liver quickly causing negative changes in lipid and glucose metabolism. For those who are unaware of these issues and are interested in the science behind fructose metabolism here is a link to a free article from the online journal Nutrition and Metabolism http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/2/1/5.

It is important to realize that high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is 55-90% fructose. Agave is 90% fructose. So many of the negative effects ascribed to HFCS would apply to Agave if it is used in high amounts. The major advantage of a high fructose sweetener like agave is that it is very sweet and usually requires only a small amount to produce the desired sweetness. This may be the major advantage to Agave, but I think this sweetener should be viewed with some suspicion given it is almost identical in every way to high fructose corn syrup. I still recommend this product to healthy people with normal body composition over white sugar because much less can be used and fructose is not an issue for them. However, it is out as a sweetener for any of my over-fat clients.

7. Honey- Honey is about 30% fructose and about 40% glucose. This means it has a little bit different composition than white table sugar (50% glucose & 50% fructose) and agave (close to 90% fructose). Because of a relatively lower fructose level compared to glucose it is ideal for an after workout sweetener for those trying to maximize muscle growth. In this case honey will raise insulin levels during a time where muscle growth will be favored over fat storage. Several studies have been done on honey’s ability to balance blood sugar levels for longer over sucrose (white table sugar) and fructose. Honey is also a very sweet alternative and so it has the same advantage as agave, that much less can be used. I love this sweetener for athletes, but avoid recommending it to my over-fat clients.

8. Saccharin (Sweet-N-Low)- This sweetener has been around since the late 1800’s when it was discovered. It is all over restaurants and comes in the little pink packets. It was originally packaged together with the other chemical sweetener cyclamate. Because of early concerns about cancer induced in animals the FDA and the Canadian equivalent of the FDA both banned certain aspects. Although they disagreed over which compound was to blame. The American FDA banned cyclamate and the Canadian organization banned saccharin. Therefore the Sweet-n-Low you find in Canada is cyclamate and the version here in the United States is saccharin. Recent research into saccharin’s effect on cancer has shown that the methodology of the original studies was flawed casting doubt as to whether there was ever any reliable evidence linking saccharin to cancer. In my biased opinion, I think this sweetener, along with other synthetic sweeteners, should be looked at with suspicion. But I also believe for someone who is diabetic and literally killing themselves with sugar this is a far better alternative.

9. Acesulfame- This is a sweetener that you will see frequently if you read a lot of labels. It is usually used along with aspartame to mask some of the aftertaste of aspartame. I could not find any studies at all on this compound that are negative. However, I could not find many studies on it period which may be an issue. Many consumer advocacy groups have complained this compound has not been studied enough to be in the food supply and should be reviewed for its safety. However, the FDA thinks otherwise and sees no risk with this sweetener. Again being a natural health practitioner I tend to be wary of “unnatural chemical compounds”. This is an admittedly non-scientific stance, but this skepticism has normally served me well. I usually recommend people avoid this sweetener.

10. Aspartame (Equal or Nutrasweet)- Of all the synthetic sweeteners this one bothers me the most. There are several recent studies showing increased risk of cancer in animals fed high amounts of the compound. It is also the major sweetener in most diet sodas and tends to be unstable at higher temperature or in acidic environments (like the stomach). Many fitness enthusiasts have used this sweetener because it is made from the amino acids aspartic acid and phenylalanine which has led them to believe it is healthy. It is usually blended with acesulfame to make it taste more like sugar. In highly acidic environments and elevated temperatures this compound can and does breakdown to form methanol and even can form formaldehyde (AKA embalming fluid) a highly toxic compound. I have serious questions about this sweetener and reccommend people avoid it completely.

Final Thoughts on Sweeteners:

There are other sweeteners out on the market, but these are the most popular. The key rules I use to evaluate sweeteners is to pick ones that are more natural, low calorie, and have a low insulin response without other detrimental metabolic issues. The chemical sweeteners in general should be looked at with suspicion in my opinion. They have not been in the food supply long enough to know their true effects. And I think to some degree we the consumer are essentially guinea pigs in the synthetic sweetener experiment. In addition many of the company’s who hold or have held the patents on these products (i.e., Monsanto) stand to lose millions of dollars if bad information comes out on them. They have the money and marketing machine to shape public opinion and hide scientific outcomes of these compounds and therefore should be scrutinized. By the same token, just because a sweetener is natural does not make it healthy. Sugar after all is natural but very detrimental to human health beyond small amounts in the diet.

To review part 1 of this series click here.