I'm not a doctor, this isn't medical advice, I'm just bullshitting on the Internet. I know this is a controversial topic and the science doesn't appear to be settled.
My understanding about how artificial sweeteners work in part is that they don't have a caloric impact but still cause an insulin response. I've avoided them as best as I can. Some people believe there's a free ride to be had with them - drink Diet Coke and nothing happens, but I'm not so sure that's the case.
If a sugary drink causes an insulin response, and perhaps that response is different of course, but if it causes an insulin response, and so do "sugar-free" drinks - we seem to be in a world where a large number of people are still dealing with issues related to sugar that they maybe aren't expecting. I just have a hard time believe there's a free ride with "sugar-free" drinks. This response probably leads to more cravings for so-called empty calories. A lot of people I find viscously defend "sugar-free" drinks which leads me to suspect there's something there too.
If you grow up with an awful diet, like I did, not centered around so-called whole foods and actual cooking I think you wind up in a vicious cycle of sugar, sugar substitutes, and other empty-calorie style foods that all feed the same biological addiction mechanism. You get fatter and fatter and no amount of exercise will work (you can't outrun a bad diet) and then add in our modern lifestyle and of course we're all pretty dang sick.
Interestingly seeing, or smelling foods can cause insulin release[0]. Perhaps it's not surprising that tasting foods would.
But it does make me wonder. If evolution was so concerned about blood sugar control it led to insulin release even before you ate (and that in evolutionary terms foods were very low in sugar and simple carbs). What must a doughnut do to our physiology?
That article seems a bit misleading. While some sweetener packets, such as equal and splenda contain some sugar, I don't believe this is necessarily true when they are used in other products. A quick google implies that, for example, Diet Coke (my beloved) does not contain any real sugar, only aspartame. So it seems disingenuous to compare the metabolic impact of a sugar/aspartame blend to pure aspartame.
I'm not a doctor, this isn't medical advice, I'm just bullshitting on the Internet. I know this is a controversial topic and the science doesn't appear to be settled.
My understanding about how artificial sweeteners work in part is that they don't have a caloric impact but still cause an insulin response. I've avoided them as best as I can. Some people believe there's a free ride to be had with them - drink Diet Coke and nothing happens, but I'm not so sure that's the case.
If a sugary drink causes an insulin response, and perhaps that response is different of course, but if it causes an insulin response, and so do "sugar-free" drinks - we seem to be in a world where a large number of people are still dealing with issues related to sugar that they maybe aren't expecting. I just have a hard time believe there's a free ride with "sugar-free" drinks. This response probably leads to more cravings for so-called empty calories. A lot of people I find viscously defend "sugar-free" drinks which leads me to suspect there's something there too.
If you grow up with an awful diet, like I did, not centered around so-called whole foods and actual cooking I think you wind up in a vicious cycle of sugar, sugar substitutes, and other empty-calorie style foods that all feed the same biological addiction mechanism. You get fatter and fatter and no amount of exercise will work (you can't outrun a bad diet) and then add in our modern lifestyle and of course we're all pretty dang sick.