KRANK durch LIGHT? Was verheimlichen uns Hersteller über Süßstoffe & Co? Stand der Wissenschaft!

Sugar alternatives, light drinks, cancer risk, addiction risk or panic attacks? Is it about our health or about a billion-dollar market where it's ultimately just about money, money, money? Do sugar substitutes cause cancer and other diseases? And do you increase the addiction to sweets and the risk of an eating disorder through sweeteners? These questions are constantly being asked by the media, last time, for example, with aspartame in relation to cancer risk. But is there anything to it at all? What does that mean? How relevant is it for someone, or is it just a matter of panic? Clearly, aspartame and co. have enormous advantages. This is not to be taken lightly, but from when does it become, let's call it, dangerous? Or not at all? We're going to explain that and more now. Hello, my name is Dr. Tobias Waig. With my YouTube channel, I would like to make a contribution to clarify medically understandable and correct about diseases, causes of these diseases, and what we can do about them ourselves. Keyword movement, sport, but also topics such as nutrition, especially nutritional medicine as a very important topic, because it all comes together very closely. And if you don't want to miss anything, feel free to subscribe to my channel now. Very simply, the question is, are leading products now dangerous or not? More and more people rely on sugar substitutes as a term. Sugar substitutes, such as erythritol or stevia, are very classic leading products. As early as now, sweeteners are in countless foods. And very important, sweetener is not the same as sweetener. They are in a lot of foods, and sales are rising rapidly. From a medical and health point of view, this is a good idea at first. A good thing. Our food is then also sweet without sugar, or with much, much less sugar. We can satisfy our desire for sweets, but only take very few or even no calories with us. Human studies show that by using sweeteners as a substitute for sugar, a significant reduction in calorie intake is achieved. And thus, and that's good, and that's important, a weight loss can be supported, especially in overweight people. And keyword there, of course, follow-up diseases such as diabetes, high blood pressure, heart weakness, etc. And at the same time, now another important aspect. Are we addicted to sweets without seeing the warning kilos on the scale? An important thought. Or one could say, sweeteners with a bitter aftertaste? That's what I once read in the press. Do sweeteners cause cancer? Do they have a negative impact on our important intestinal flora? This is also being discussed. And what about a possibly disguised addiction? Disguised because due to the lack of weight gain, the outside world does not see the craving for something sweet and can perhaps even develop an eating disorder from it. Sweeteners, secret cancer risk? That's the crucial question and one that is also often questioned in the media, also based on WHO findings. Do you actually know how often and how many sweeteners you eat? How much consciously and how much unconsciously? That's also the very crucial question. I'll go into more detail later, but so much is true. Sure, the dose makes the poison. And very, very likely, it's not the self-produced sweeteners that are the problem, where you sweeten your own food, but the accumulation of unconsciously produced sweeteners. Or are you aware of where there is something in everything by now? I'll say it again, drinks, chewing gums, bars, pizza, ice cream, ketchup, etc. A lot, a lot, and often we don't know. How do sweeteners hide on packaging? One should pay attention to this. Aspartame, stevia, saccharin are often called sweeteners and also the E-digits. They are found mainly in light drinks or sugar-reduced sweets. 12 of them are currently approved by the EU. The big advantage of aspartame and co. is on the hand, I just said, because they usually don't have calories, or completely negligible calories. But what about this cancer risk? In mid-2023, the WHO classified aspartame as possibly cancer-causing, after they checked all available data on aspartame. Should they let the fingers of light drinks in the future, to put it in general? Because aspartame may also apply to others. Well, it's not that simple. The WHO distinguishes four levels of scientific evidence, i.e. how good the scientific evidence for the risk of cancer actually is. You have to know that if you discuss it. Possibly cancer-causing, what does that mean? That is the third level, in which, by the way, among other things, and that's interesting, aloe vera are, also the cell phone radiation, and we all use the cell phone. And, very important, there is not only, but especially from animal studies there are indications, that the sweetener could cause cancer. However, animal studies, where the studies or what was mainly investigated, cannot be transferred to us humans one-to-one. And the WHO itself points out, that the evidence for the connection between aspartame and cancer is not convincing. So, and now in my own thing, and that is definitely convincing, these are my own advisors, which we have released, my team and I, which we have written, based on all in total over 400 studies, namely the most current findings, the best foods, or also supplements on the subject of muscle building, so feel free to take a look at my shop, and there, scientifically based statements on nutrition, find micronutrients and macronutrients, so if that interests you, feel free to take a look. So, back to the topic. In addition, these evidence levels, the four I just mentioned, do not refer to which dose a substance is considered carcinogenic. And that is ultimately crucial. As I said, the dose makes the poison. A glass of beer does not directly destroy our liver. Accordingly, nothing has changed in the specified permissible daily dose, and that is still at a maximum of 40 mg per kilogram of body weight for aspartame. And to exceed that, to imagine it, to calculate it, a 70 kg adult would have to drink about 9 to 14 cans of light drinks a day. And that's a lot. So, yes, the dose makes the poison, but this dose is already mega-much. And in comparison, let's put it this way, eating tons of tomatoes or apples, let alone tons of salmon or tuna, is unhealthy. It is often said that twice a week tuna is not healthy because of the pollutants in it. So what is crucial for your health? Exactly, the nutritional pattern. I say that again and again. And of course, aspartame and co. may also be included. Nevertheless, you should know the possible disadvantages of aspartame and the other substances. In addition to the possible risk of cancer, as I just explained, there are also indications from animal studies that the substances may change the gut flora, keyword microbiome, influence the metabolism or even increase the risk of diabetes. Important, there are indications, no evidence. But, and you know that, and that goes a little bit in the direction of addiction and also wrong eating habits. In addition, these substances can have an appetizing effect and thus not dampen overweight, or the danger exists, not dampen, but can even promote it. You can imagine it yourself, you eat something, you sweeten it properly, sweetening has no calories, that's low in calories, but you eat something with it, you sweeten something else and there may be calories in it. So here again, the nutrient pattern is very important. My tip, therefore, consume light products only in moderate quantities and make sure not to exceed the recommended daily maximum amount. I know, such news about cancer risks can also be unsettling. That always means that it is a good food or that it is a bad food, the food causes cancer, that's not the case. That's why it's important for you to understand that. For sugar, the health risks are, in comparison, much clearer. For example, in this study here, and if you throw a piece of sweetener in your coffee in the morning instead of sugar, you should continue to do so. This sweetener probably has more advantages than sugar disadvantages. Xylitol and co., these can be sugar substitutes. That was before sweeteners, now comes sugar substitutes. The biggest advantage of sugar substitutes is obvious. In comparison to sugar, they also have considerably fewer calories. Xylitol, for example, only contains about 40% of the calories of refined sugar. Erythritol only 6%. A dream for everyone who wants to lose weight. Because here, too, one thing is very clear. Overweight is often crucial, involved in other diseases, of course, and can be a health risk for the cardiovascular system, as well as, for example, for joints, for our organs, also for the liver, etc. I've already made a lot of videos about it. So that's for sure. For the removal of existing or the construction of new fat reserves, the blood sugar level is of course also crucial in the body. And always remember, you are increasing with an excess of calories. Sugar has a high glycemic index, i.e. a strong influence on our blood sugar level. This, in turn, affects the excretion of insulin and even xylitol, which is not completely calorie-free, but has a significantly lower effect on the blood sugar level than, for example, normal sugar, and is therefore theoretically suitable for diabetics and everyone else who want to keep their blood sugar level in the lower range. In general, it is of course always good to keep the blood sugar level relatively constant. In addition, these sugar substitutes are also much healthier. A completely different aspect. Who always says that? The dentist. Namely, for the teeth. When you take sugar with you, bacteria already start in the mouth with the sedation and thus promote caries and the formation of plaque. Some dentists even go so far and completely advise against sugar and, of course, sugar-containing foods. Logical. If this step is too drastic or you simply can't get your sweet tooth under control, logically, what would be the option then? With the sugar substitutes, there is a more tooth-healthy alternative. Tooth health is of course relative here again, because in theory, no sugar or sugar substitute is the best option. Feel free to take a look here. But I also know for myself, of course, that a sugar-free life is difficult in practice. Especially why? Because we are not aware of where sugar is in everything or also sweeteners or sugar substitutes. Health risk, sugar substitute, everything sounds too nice to be true. Or, and a few ticks have the substitutes too. So, sugar substitutes, at the current time, compared to many other things, like sugar itself, sugar substitutes are not well enough researched to exclude health-harmful effects, to make clear statements. As long as this is the case, you should consider the use for yourself or at least not consume it in masses. That's it, don't overdo it, as always. The sugar substitutes we have here are all approved for the German market. In the entire EU, however, there are only 8, like xylitol, erythritol or sorbitol. In addition, we have these substances in many foods, but we can no longer even recognize whether they are in it and we have to eat something. Regardless of what's in it, it's enough to print the harmless term sweetener on the packaging. In addition, there is no high value for these substitutes. There is a high value for sweeteners. I just mentioned that with aspartame. All of this has not been sufficiently tested by research and could trigger unforeseeable health consequences. However, this applies only to sweeteners and not to sugar substitutes. That's a difference, sweeteners to carcinogens. You shouldn't confuse that either. Doesn't sound like it anyway. The ADI is deliberately kept low for safety reasons, but it shows again that we actually know far too little about these substances. And that is actually bitterly necessary when looking at possible side effects. The side effects already start with excessive distortion. And you may notice that too. It can lead to bloating, diarrhea, stomach and intestinal issues. This does not apply to every substance, of course. And here, too, the limits are usually so high that you have to rely on it specifically. But animal trials have shown possible harmful consequences. And often it is so, individually different. If other substances are added, which, so to speak, irritate the intestinal system, then it can be too much. We don't just eat one thing. Studies are often also laboratory experiments. You only examine a certain value. Our life, our diet is much more complex. There are many different substances added. And that is very crucial. So that's why on the packaging the hint is usually enough that excessive distortion can have a negative effect. That's all there is to it. But this classification of substances still exists. This is also important from the 1980s and is therefore also outdated. These substances were individually re-examined by the European Food Safety Authority. It was done. To get a comprehensive picture here, but that somehow equals the proverbial treasure hunt. So in short, many old findings, many new findings and there are actually no clear statements yet. And that brings us back to the core question. Are sugar substitutes now recommendable overall? In summary, you can say, and you should confirm and confirm this yourself, that sugar substitutes are probably unremarkable overall. Sweeteners in moderate amounts, most likely also. They have many good effects. That is important. However, the question remains whether they also fulfill their purpose. And unfortunately I have to say that this is at least controversial. If these substances then have an appetizing effect and at the same time convey the feeling that we could eat more of something because there is no sugar in it, then every diet will do itself. The nutritional pattern is crucial and whoever wants to lose weight ultimately needs a calorie deficit. That is crucial. And how you get that ultimately is, so to speak, your own business. Again, very important. Meta-analytical findings from human studies show that by using sweeteners as a sugar substitute a significant reduction in calorie intake is achieved and thus a significant weight loss can be supported in overweight people. I just explained that. And therefore, this other aspect also seems rather unlikely. So far, the quintessence from a scientific point of view. A life completely without sugar, but of course, is always possible, but also accordingly difficult and in today's time, you have to say, actually no longer possible. Occasionally, they offer sugar substitutes. And if we are aware that we are not able to achieve a very high level of sugar in our diet, then we have to think about And if we are aware that we are not able to eat more and healthier automatically, then they can support us. And you should also think about how often you use them. You don't have to sweeten everything right away. You don't have to put them in, for example. You don't need to. If you take substitutes or rather a sweetener or normal sugar, then feel free to write it in the comments. Write your opinion on the subject. Let's talk about it. Vielen Dank und bleiben Sie mir treu!