Check out my guest post on jcdfitness.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

This article is basically selling the idea that supplements are necessary for good health. What I will do is to define the need for such supplements, and then to give a list of some supplements that I think everybody should have.

First, a definition. This, I must unfortunately say, is horrendously vague. A supplement can be anything from a protein powder, to a multivitamin pill, to cod liver oil. So let me give my verbose definition, that a supplement is: a compound that is consumed to prevent the onset of disease or to potentially enhance various physiological pathways so as to bring about increased well-being and performance for the individual.

While there are some supplements which are a complete waste of money, it is a fact that our body does not get enough of certain nutrients or minerals. The only remedy for this is to take something extra to get the necessary nutrient.

In fact, supplementation is simply a method to get the nutrients which food does not adequate supply. And let’s face the fact that food (especially the crappy food modern humans eat) does not give us adequate amounts of certain nutrients to thrive to a ripe old age in good health in today’s world; we are in a deficiency state of some nutrients, especially so for some groups in the population.

Just to get the topic of artificial vs natural out of the way – I don’t buy it. As long as there are no clear dangers in the manufacture of the supplement [1], the cost of not taking it and risking deficiency is far greater than taking it and risking some other vague problems. It is my opinion that most people against this view simply want to tout their ideological belief in only consuming “natural” foodstuffs.

However, I’d like to give some short examples, and I hope that they can shed some light on the issue at hand.

The Examples

The Old lady has reached menopause. Her hormone levels have dropped, which reduces the absorption efficiency of calcium and related nutrients.

The depressed worker[2] may have inadequate tryptophan in the brain. Supplementing with something like 5-HTP may help alleviate the symptoms.

The vegetarian, due to zero meat consumption, may be lacking in protein, iron[3] and vitamin B12. Supplementing with each of the above will help in long-term health.

Finally, the average person’s diet that is low in fruit and vegetable, full of processed food containing lots of saturated and trans fats, and an inadequate protein supply, surely spells

Why Take Supplements?

If your goal is like mine, to do handstands at 90 years old, then your job is to delay the eventual fate of all people as much as possible. This is by no means a natural process. I think we all need to accept that we are engineering our bodies to become more resilient against whatever the world can throw at us, from toxic substances in our food to pollution in the air.

In the examples above, the line between supplements and downright medication can become very obscure. The separating factor is that supplements cure a disease of deficiency; they provide enough nutrients to bring the person from whatever context he/she is in to a healthful existence.

Unfortunately, with the stressors of the modern world, many people can potentially be in a deficient state of some nutrients. The cubicle workers in Scandinavia this winter will certainly not be getting enough Vitamin D for their own good.

My Current Philosophy

If a supplement has potential benefits as seen in scientific literature, it should then be weighed against the potential negative impacts of taking it. If the negatives are minimal to non-existent, then the supplement is worth a shot.

For example, increased Vitamin D consumption to 10,000 IU a day does not cause toxicity. The potential benefits are well-documented. Hence the only cost borne by the user in the monetary cost [4].

This gives a nice segway to a short list of supplements for the general populus.

A Short list:

A general multivitamin
Vitamin C – about 1000mg/day
Vitamin E – 400IU/day
Vitamin D – see my post for recommendations
Calcium, Zinc and Magnesium – Enough to hit RDA’s
Fish Oil – 6g Fish Oil for 1080mg EPA and 720mg DHA

This list is certainly a limited list, for it assumes the condition of a young, healthy male (myself). Illness or other deficiencies will change the list dramatically.

A Final Word

What I want to write this article for is to reach out to those people who are adverse to taking supplements. Often quoting their lack of efficacy. This is largely true in the short-term.

Realise though that supplements are there to prevent a disease of deficiency to achieve health and longevity beyond the 30-40 year life expectancy we saw for most of human history. The very fact that they were effective is seen by an absence of disease in later life.

Hence, I urge people to take interest in a supplementation protocol. Work with your physician, read up the literature around you. Take a proactive approach, and always make a supplement decision based upon potential negatives instead of potential positives.

–
Notes:
[1] As an example, fish oil capsules in the past were not filtered as well as they are today, and some batches contained insane amounts of mercury. This problem is largely rectified with today’s manufacturing processes, but it still gives peace of mind to select the brands with an explicit ‘Mercury Tested’ label on their package.

Beyond that, do not forget to check the components used to make the casings/binding agents/capsules of various supplements. For example, people who have celiac disease should avoid supplements with casings made from a derivative of a gluten containing foodstuff (like wheat).

[2] Depression here refers to the true clinical sense of depression.

[3] Heme iron in meat is absorbed much better than non-heme iron in vegetables. As a result, a much higher consumption of iron is needed in vegetarians.

[4] I think that the monetary cost definitely should not be the highest one of the priority list when it comes to matters of health. I’d rather be concerned about whether or not something will work.

Related posts:

1. Vitamin D for the layperson This post is exactly what the title and graphic suggest:...
2. The Cost of a “Healthy” Diet One very pertinent issue that must cross people’s minds in...
3. Adopting Healthy Habits Be it trying to lose some weight, sticking to an...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

One very pertinent issue that must cross people’s minds in the cost of the food that they eat. In my view, many people have the view that eating healthy (link to a post) is more expensive than eating normally (whatever that may mean). I’d have to say, this idea has some merit. However, the difference can be very minimal and sometimes you may end up spending less. [1]

In my experience, the 3 biggest money sinks when it comes to eating healthy would be to get an adequate protein intake, fruit and vegetable intake and to get the necessary supplements. Note that the last item is not absolutely necessary, but comes up commonly enough to warrant a discussion.

Finally, before we begin, let me say that this varies enormously from region to region. In places like California, organic produce is abundant, protein powders are cheap, and other supplements are cheap as well. A place like Guang Zhou China may be the opposite. Foodstuffs in some places like Europe can also be really expensive. As someone who has visited numerous places and has lived in Singapore for a period of time, I can sympathise.

There is unfortunately no solution, since food prices are governed by the laws of economics, the produce of the region and the vagary’s of national government policies. Your best bet, would be to ask people who are interested in the same goal (athletes in particular) and grab the money saving tips they use to stick to their diets.

Protein intake

I’ve mentioned in my basics of nutrition post that one should be eating 1g/lbs lean body mass (LBM) of protein a day for good health (see notes for disclaimer). [2] However, this isn’t always easy.

First, let’s establish some typical values for both males and females.

Let’s take an 90kg/196lbs male at 15% body fat. He has approximately 167lbs of LBM. Let’s now take a 60kg/132lbs female at 25% body fat. She has approximately 99lbs of LBM.

That means that in these examples, we are talking about 170g of protein a day for the male, and 100g of protein a day for the female. So we can already see the fact that since males are on average larger and have lower body fat [3], they need more protein.

For the male, this represents eating 800g of chicken breast (weighed raw) a day while it is only about 480g for the female. Granted that you’re not getting all your day’s protein from chicken breast, but its pretty obvious that eating that much is going to get pricey fast.

Very likely, the best course of action would be to buy stuff in bulk. Bulk chicken breasts, bulk beef, etc. I know this isn’t that easy in some countries, and to that, I unfortunately offer no solution. Again, ask around to see what other people who pursue the same lifestyle do. However, never obsess over this item and if you can’t afford this kind of protein intake (which is not the practice of most of the world), don’t kill yourself doing it. Remember your priorities.

Fruit and Vegetable Intake

Let’s settle the fact once and for all that an adequate consumption of fruits and vegetables is good for you. While I’m totally against the Raw Food movement, 6 serves of fruit and vegetables a day can give nothing but benefits.

In the context of keeping cost low. I would say the only solution is to get seasonal fruits. This should be pretty obvious and I will end it there.

Supplements

First, I would like to say that the need for supplements is arguably an evident one, and my next article will touch on that, so stay tuned.

For now, I will assume that some form of supplementation is going to be used.

First, I will use the vague qualifier of supplements as: Anything that isn’t food.

And that would be a good bridge to the first use of supplements: to get a cheap and convenient protein intake; Protein Powders.

If you take out your calculator and punch in the numbers, protein powders tend to be cheaper than raw source of protein. This may vary from place to place, but it sure is true in the USA as well as my place in Australia. I’m sure you can get many recommendations for protein supplements in the US, but its going to get a little harder outside of that country. For what it’s worth, I buy in bulk (20kg WPC bags) from Professional-Whey.com. (No I am not affiliated by any means).

Still, you will need to weigh the cost of current items in your location versus that of the protein powder. For example, here in Melbourne, Beef is pretty dam cheap, but the downside is the higher fat content, and of course, the boredom of relying on a single protein source.

Just to throw out some numbers, a can of tuna costs me $0.90 and gives 35g of protein at a cost of 2.6cents/g protein. Whereas my protein powder, which I buy in bulk @ $250 for 20kg, yields a cost of 1.6cents/g protein. This may not sound like much, but with higher protein consumptions in larger individuals, this can mean the differences between paying $40/week for food versus $60/week, substantial savings for the budget-tight health-obsessed person.

The rest of the supplementation would then be optional. I would definitely recommend people take a multivit, Vitamin C and Vitamin D and some fish oil, but I would leave that discussion for the next article.

What I would say, is that when buying supplements, the generic supplements that meet lab safety test requirements are often as good as any from the leading brands. An easy example is with fish oil. As long as the product is certified mercury tested, it is fit for consumption. Yet we see a price difference among different brands. [4]

A Final Note to Keep Things in Perspective

The purpose of this article wasn’t as much as to tell you what to do; most people who are interested in the area would already have their own sources of such stuff. The purpose was to give some perspective.

The take home message should be: Do your sums, figure out your budget and stick to it.

As a final note, I’ve known many people who want to eat enough protein, get the best supplements, and train in the best gyms, amidst other things. Very often, circumstances may not allow that. It may be a family who denounces your “odd” practices, a hard time in life, or any other reason that restricts the ability to gain access to such foods, be it due to budget or otherwise. Remember to consider ALL costs, that of your time, your relationships, your money, and any other potential qualifiers.

Always be asking yourself: 1 year from now, is this all going to be worth it?

—-
Notes:

[1] Tell me if i’m wrong, but I think many supplement companies generate unwarranted hype over various products, taking advantage of people’s ignorance of healthy eating. This potentially simplifies healthy eating as to simply doing a single thing, be it eating your vegetables, buying a miracle supplement, or what not. Very often, we hear claims of people claiming massive health benefits from simply taking a certain combination of supplements. While some cases exists, they are invariably the ones that have been proven to work scientifically in a certain context to prevent/cure a certain ailment or enhance a particular condition. Consumers need to know the scientific facts (link to reading about science).

Some examples of products with clear benefits include fish oil, Vitamin D and creatine amidst other things. There is sufficient scientific evidence behind this to show their efficacy.

There are numerous examples of products that do not show conclusive benefits to the general population, but that is a topic worthy of a whole different discussion.

[2] As usual, don’t forget the context (link to Lyle’s article). If you have a pre-existing condition, for example a history of renal (kidney) disfunction, none of this applies. Consult your doctor.

For most people, a protein intake as stated has shown both in research and everyday environments to yield no negative impact. If it did, the people who have been practicing this rule (athletes, bodybuilders, fitness enthusiasts, etc) for decades would have realised it.

However, there are positive effects of consuming protein. This ranges from increased immune function to increased satiety (you feel less hungry).

Finally, not consuming enough protein can compromise the benefits as well as lead to other problems, such as muscle loss under high activity, increased hunger cravings, general lethargy, etc.

[3] For pretty obvious reasons, a female will have to carry more body fat than a male at the same weight.

[4] I got a bottle of 600 x 1000mg Odourless (enteric coated) fish oil caps from Omega3Max for AUD25. That’s the cost of 200 such capsules with Blackmores.

Related posts:

1. Why I’m Against Vegetarianism Basically, it’s not the healthiest route forward. Regardless of whether...
2. Adopting Healthy Habits Be it trying to lose some weight, sticking to an...
3. Diet Self-Sabotage 1: The Lack of Proper Expectations and the Proper Plan This is the first post in the “Self Sabotage in...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

This post is exactly what the title and graphic suggest: it is a post talking about one of the essential vitamins for good health, Vitamin D.

Vitamin D is a sunshine vitamin, and it is made in the skin when exposed to UVB radiation. Unfortunately, our paranoia over skin cancers has led people to believe that any sun exposure is bad. Turns out, as it mostly does with health issues, that there is a happy medium.

Too much sun is bad, but some sun is necessary. This post deals with:

• The problem
• The solution
• Safety

But First: The man behind the Vit D research – Dr Michael Holick

• Sunlight and vitamin D for bone health and prevention of autoimmune diseases, cancers, and cardiovascular disease

• Vitamin D absorption in healthy subjects and in patients with intestinal malabsorption syndromes

These are two studies by Dr Michael Holick available free online and should be read by anyone who wants to know more. I will be quoting from these studies, so you should get the gist of them by reading this post.

I hope that after reading this post, your interest will be piqued enough to motivate you to download these studies and watch this very long talk by Dr Holick. If not, applying the recommendations from this post will already do you good.

You may also benefit from getting his book, ‘The UV advantage’.

As well, it would be great to watch this presentation: The Vitamin D Pandemic and its Health Consequences

Now, let’s begin.

The root of the problem

This goes back to our ancestors who lived in the tropics. Back in the day, (2,000,000 years ago) our ancestors got all the sun they needed to make enough Vitamin D. Interestingly, it is the Ultraviolet B (UVB) radiation that causes the skin to make Vitamin D in the first place.

Now the problem presents itself. Many parts of the world are now gripped by the icy hand of winter, and thus, people are wrapped up in clothing and don’t go outside as often. Very likely, sun exposure goes down and Vitamin D levels plummet. Furthermore, our lifestyle nowadays revolves largely around indoor work (some professions are exceptions). Furthermore, when many finally do get under the sun, they apply sunscreen, which blocks out 95% of UVB radiation. [1]

Now, Vitamin D also comes from our diet, but only in small amounts. For example, a 250ml glass of milk contains 100IU of Vitamin D. As we will see later, this isn’t enough. As Dr Holick concludes, “more than 90% of the vitamin D requirement for most people comes from casual exposure to sunlight.”

The consequences

Traditionally, the problem associated with Vitamin D is rickets. In this case, the group affected is children. Administering about 400IU of Vitamin D with cod liver oil a day back in the 1800s was what largely curbed the problem. Unfortunately, what worked for children is not going to work for adults. [2] So if a small child needs 400IU (4 glasses of milk) of Vitamin D, what would an adult need? I will come back to this later, but now, more bad news.

Not enough Vitamin D causes other problems, both in children and adults. Children may fall prey to rickets of course, and to top that off we have stunted growth, muscle weakness, and many other bad things. Adults not getting enough Vitamin D may have poor calcium absorption, which leads to diseases like osteomalacia. The elderly are particularly affected, and you can imagine that brittle bones and muscle weakness can potentially lead to falls and hip fractures. Furthermore, when you get older, your skin starts to go wonky, and you actually produce less Vitamin D with the same amount of sun exposure.

Enough of that, you can Google the results of a Vitamin D deficiency. But we just need to know that: Not enough Vitamin D = Bad things happen.

The Solution

There are a couple of things to do, so I will break down the solution into a couple of segments.

First: Requirements

There have been a few different requirements thrown out, but they all fall within some pre-set range. Note that there are two common units of measurement for Vitamin D blood concentration. There is the nano-moles per Litre (nmol/L) and the nanograms per millilitre (ng/mL).[3] Make sure you know the units, because the values differ for each unit. Confusing, yes, but that’s the fickle scientists for you.

Anyway, Dr Holick suggests that you keep Vitamin D concentration between 75-125nmol/L (equivalent to about 30-50ng/mL), with others suggesting upwards from 40-60ng/L to even 75ng/L.

Regardless, I must make this note, that problems associated with Vitamin D are due to not having enough of it. Thus, we are better off asking, “How much is too much?”

The answer to that is that studies show that blood concentrations of 250nmol/L (or 100ng/L) is completely safe. Some studies even show levels of 150ng/L not giving signs of Vitamin D intoxication.

Given that most of the American population is Vitamin D deficient [4], having levels lower than 50nmol/L, there is cause for concern.

Second: Testing

This is the shortest but most important section. The only way at present to test for a person’s Vitamin D status is through a blood test which measures the serum concentration of 25(OH)D (pronounced ’25 Hydroxy D’) and not anything else. There are various forms of Vitamin D, but we are only interested in this form.

The last point here is that it would be wise to test your Vitamin D status at its highest and its lowest. Namely, after Winter for the lowest, and after summer for the highest. If you live in the tropics, any time of the year would likely do.

Third: Treating

Now that you know your Vitamin D level, its time to boost that to the 75-125nmol/L range.

There are two ways which you can do this. The first would be to get out into the sun, and the second would be to take supplements.

The first is simple, take your clothes off and run around in the sun! On a more serious note, Dr Holick has recommended that fair-skinned folk can make do with about 10-15 minutes of sun exposure at the brightest time of the day (11am – 1pm). After this, sunscreen should be applied to stop the negative effects of over-exposure.

However, darker-skinned individuals need more exposure. Quoting Dr Holick, “It has been documented to require 5-10 times more exposure to produce a 30-fold increase in blood concentration of Vitamin D in an African-American subject compared to a Caucasian subject.”

Hence, the recommendations should change as a result. In this regard, I have not seen precise recommendations. So, it depends.

A final note on the first method is that the amount of sun reaching Sweden in November is going to be much different from the sun reaching Australia at the same time of the year, so this is a very variable recommendation.

Hence, we have our second solution. This is simply to take supplements, usually in a capsule form to boost the Vitamin D levels in the blood. This is arguably easier and more precisely measurable.

You should know your Vitamin D status after you have tested it. Say it is hovering at 20ng/mL and you would like to boost it to 50ng/mL. This is where the general rule applies, that for every 10ng/mL increase you want, you should take 1000IU Vitamin D daily. This varies of course, but it is generally accurate.

So our subject would take 3,000IU every day for 6 months. After that he gets his Vitamin D levels checked, and hurray, its now at 48ng/mL. He’s a big guy, so he needs more Vitamin D, but his levels are now within the recommended range and he’s very happy.

Safety

As with anything related to health and especially supplementation, there is bound to be the issue of safety. The first one is the potential for overdose.

If you take pills or powders, make sure you know how much is in each pill and how much you are taking daily. Though rare, vitamin D overdose can happen. You could easily measure your Vitamin D levels to monitor this if you wanted to.

The good news is that this is very unlikely.

As seen in this graph by Michael Holick and colleagues, a 1 time administration of 50,000 IU of Vitamin D in capsule form to normal patients only spiked blood Vitamin D to around 80-90ng/mL; below the level of intoxication.

Note that this is for Vitamin D alone, so also watch to see if your supplements could contain other nutrients which could potentially lead to an overdose of that nutrient. (Eg: Some Vitamin D supplements come with Calcium, and could be overdosed)

A Brief but Important Conclusion

Vitamin D is important for healthy function, and many people do not get enough of it.

The best advice would be to take massive action. Get a blood test to determine your individual 25(OH)D serum concentration. Then get out into the sun more often and take Vitamin D supplements.

With some awareness and of course some cash investment, the problem will be easily solved. For long-term health, I think it is well worth it.

—

Notes:
[1] This is apparently for an SPF 15 sunscreen. Higher SPF sunscreens would block slightly more, approx 98%

[2] It should be noted that a larger body needs more nutrients, and Vitamin D is no exception.

[3] 1 ng/mL Vit D is equivalent to about 2.5 nmol/L.

[4] Dr Holick reports the findings of other researchers in his papers. Of which, some include the findings that 54% of nursing home members and 38% of nursing home residents were Vitamin D deficient. Also, another study showed that 47% of white girls aged 9-13 were Vitamin D deficient at the end of winter. Yet another shows that more than 50% of African American teenagers in Boston were Vitamin D deficient, and the list goes on.

Related posts:

1. Supplements are Necessary This article is basically selling the idea that supplements are...
2. The Cost of a “Healthy” Diet One very pertinent issue that must cross people’s minds in...
3. Scientific Research: The compilers, commentors and the researchers In this article, I talk about the biases that can...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Image Credit: arkworld

(Note: this is one of those long posts @ 1500 words)

Artificial Sweeteners have been around for quite some time now and thus have been used by people for quite some time as well.

To clarify, it is not that such sweeteners have no calories, but rather are usually 20 times sweeter than sugar despite containing the same amount of calories. Hence, the same level of ‘sweetness’ can be obtained with 1/20th the calories (or less).

As with anything ‘artificial’, these substances are subject to the ongoing debate and attack of various parties. From ‘fundamentalists’ who think that everything should be natural, to people who are uncertain and thus don’t want to meddle in the ‘unknown’.

Of all the sweeteners, the most commonly used is arguably Aspartame

This has been hectared has a cancer causing agent, and I would wish to clarify on that claim. Fortunately for me (and everyone else), aspartame has been around long enough for actual human studies to have been done on large enough sample sizes.

In this post, I will discuss:

• What the current body of research says – frequent use of aspartame within limits does not contribute to cancer risk.
• Why using sweeteners may be good or bad and the ultimate need to consider context

First – A Word About Research

One of my biggest peeves is the media taking up some research paper and blowing it out of proportion. Very often, the facts and figures are correct, however the methodology is not considered. At times, the researchers’ discussion about their results is omitted, which often contains many crucial caveats. Worse still, will be the media agency added their own ‘analysis’ to this data, which very often turns out to be false.

One good example would be this article on the Sydney Morning Herald title “Aspartame Linked to Cancer“. The title is obviously meant to capture attention, and unfortunately few people may pay heed to the single line in the article. which I quote:

The Italian researchers found a cancer risk at the very highest doses – double the US Acceptable Daily Intake.

You will know why this represents an insane amount of aspartame later in the article.

My suggestion: Use Caution when reading anything in the mainstream media (Any non-science specific media, and no Discovery Newsletter doesn’t count). Take heed of the analysis of the writer and only trust the analysis if it is congruent with the actual research cited. If proper citations don’t exist or data is somehow or rather not accessible, assume you did not read the article.

The next problem is with animal studies. Some animal studies can be of benefit, and many of them do in fact benefit us. However, the fact that animals were used obviously leads one to question the results of the experiment had it been performed on real humans.

Let’s face one fact, Humans respond differently to various substances compared to animals. The problem is that many studies are done on rats, since they are easy to obtain and record data quickly and effectively from. Monkeys would be a better model but therein lies the inherent feasibility and ethical issues.

The problem really gets bad when rat sudies are extrapolated to be applicable to humans just from a small handful of studies, and then blown up by the mainstream media. The best case of this are the studies on rats concerning net protein balance.

Basically, rats showed that metabolism was decreased 4 hours after a meal. This was then thought to be true with humans, and thus came the ‘many small meals stoke the metabolic fire’ belief.

However, rats work on a much faster time scale as compared to humans. Fasting studies typically show a unchanged metabolic rate after 72 hours of fasting.

More pertinent to the topic, many anti-aspartame sites have sprung up, dorway.com, and mercola.com just to name two. I’m sure you can find many of such. I must say that you should pay attention to the references, not just the number of references.

For example, many of the references on mercola.com look like this:

Account of John Cook as published in Informed Consent Magazine. “How Safe Is Your Artificial Sweetner” by Barbara Mullarkey, September/October 1994.

Which isn’t exactly the most reliable and balanced of sources to get information from.

The take away is: Be wary of all the ‘research’, and trust your judgement based upon multiple scientific studies.

Also, read the researcher discussions in their work. In the scientific community, researchers will have to say they are uncertain about certain data points if they think so, lest he be hectered by his peers. That is the self-verifying nature of the scientific community. Also, enough data will have to be presented before any conclusions can be drawn, a single study will usually not result in acceptance in something as a universal fact. Most of the time, professional researchers do say when they are uncertain and when they are not. Do take those words literally.

What the Research Says about Aspartame

The short story is that most government organizations have given the pass on aspartame. This ties in with the current scientific research which shows no correlation between moderate habitual aspartame consumption to cancer risks or other issues.

Food Standards Australia and New Zealand published a July 2009 release on Aspartame which stated that it was safe. It sets a daily limit of 40mg/kg bodyweight. This is similair to the US recommendation of 50mg/kg bodyweight.

Some quick math puts the US recommendation at 3750mg for a 75kg adult, the equivalent of 21 330mL cans of diet soda. The Australian recommendation is 80% of this and thus we round down to 16 cans of soda. For a 20kg child, and using the Australian value, gives 1000mg a day, or the equivalent of at least 5 cans of soda.

As for the research backing these limits, there are many sites which provide such data with proper scientific citations. Such include the National Cancer Institute and the Aspartame Information Center.

Also of interest are research papers freely available to the public. One good example would be – Artificial sweeteners and cancer risk in a network of case–control studies. In this study, many different studies on different groups of people were compared to assess the resonable risk from habitual aspartame consumption. The researchers final line in the paper is:

In conclusion, therefore, this study provides no evidence that saccharin or other sweeteners (mainly aspartame) increase the risk of cancer at several common sites in humans.

I’m not going to rigorously analyze the article here, and you can read it for yourself for the exact details of the population studies done.

My main point I want to make is that information on such scientific research is often very accessible, as demonstrated by the very fact that this research paper was free.

The REAL point I want to make is: You can see all the research, and then can choose to believe what you want to believe. I hope that that belief is skewed towards a scientific approach.

The Good and the Bad

Scientific ranting aside, I can now address the potential use of aspartame and other sweeteners.

First, the Good.

The paper has another interesting line, which I quote:

In the present data, there was a direct association between consumption of sweeteners and laryngeal cancer risk. However, we found a borderline significant association also between sugar consumption and laryngeal cancer risk.

This statement tells us two things. Firstly, that consuming artificial sweeteners typically reduces consumption of sugar.

Secondly, the statement tells us that this may in fact decrease cancer risk by solving some problems associated with sugar consumption. Since increased sugar consumption predisposes one to many other problems, most importantly obesity, aspartame may help one cope with these problems. However, this second point is my own speculation and does not have scientific backing, so don’t take it too seriously.

The implications of this are straightforward – It helps people satisfy nagging sugar cravings without consuming too much calories.

Imagine taking an obese man who drinks 1 liter of soda a day. Replace all that with diet soda, and he saves approximately 300 calories. Instantly he can cut calories without feeling too deprived (if at all).

I will add that on very-low calorie diets, drinking some diet soda helps tremendously with adherence to the diet.

The Bad

However, to be fair, some people feel that drinking calorie-free drinks does not kill their sweet tooth.

It is also anecdotally noted that drinking diet sodas even enhanced the desire to eat, potentially causing problems.

However, these are limited problems at worse. I will emphasize the need to use your own discretion in the effective use of such sweeteners to tie in with your goals, be it to eat less or simply enjoy drinks without the calories.

In Conclusion

Aspartame and other sweeteners do not give any reasonable risk if consumed on a regular (daily) basis within limits stipulated by government departments. That value can be safely assumed to be 50mg/kg bodyweight a day.

As such, use such sweeteners as you would within these limits to aid in adherence to your goals.

Related posts:

1. Scientific Research: The compilers, commentors and the researchers In this article, I talk about the biases that can...
2. Why Genetics Matter – the case of Usain Bolt Genetics Matter. Period. I’m not the only one to share...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.