News
Top blogs
Podcast
Topics
EventsIs stevia natural?
Stevia is a non-caloric sweetener that is relatively new on the international market. It originates in the leaves of a South American plant. Because of that it’s marketed as a “100% natural” alternative to other non-caloric sweeteners.
There’s been some discussion about how natural it really is, as it’s extracted from the leaves using different solvents and goes through further chemical processes before it emerges as a white sweet powder.
Personally I’m no fan of sweeteners, regardless of their origin. They tend to maintain an addiction to sweets. I’ve never seen Stevia as “natural”. It’s purified from leaves and thus it’s no more natural than snorting cocaine (which is also purified from leaves).
125 comments
And in what way is that different from cocaine? Someone addicted to cocaine might make the exact same argument.
But the question is, whether Stevia is good for health or not.
Another point is difference between modern processed food and paleo age processed food & also in the processing time, possibility of food contamination.
I also believe that any forms of sweeteners is not only totally unnecessary, but that they can also maintain your desire for sweets. Cravings can be hard to resist when you first eliminate sugars and artificial sweeteners like splenda, but it usually gets easier within a couple of weeks. There is nothing like finally feeling free from food!
I thought, it is glucose, which makes craving. Some days ago, I read a study on athletes. Sorry, can't provide link now.
I think you're wrong. It's possible to get addicted to lots of things (sex, gambling, fast food). Abnormal sweetness is almost certainly one of them.
The point is that for the addicted person the experience is about the same. And it's all about the same reward circuitry in the brain.
Partly right, certainly. But the reward theory of weight gain coexists happily with the insulin theory of weight gain (my talk at the AHS was about this), so regression to simplistic calorie counting is still silly.
Getting addicted to high carb junk food makes you eat more of it. This raises your insulin and causes weight gain.
Let's say that you were somehow addicted to Stevia - which as we have established and which you have failed to substantiate, there is no evidence to support. But let's say you were somehow addicted. SO what? Stevia has 0 calories, no effect on blood sugar and has a number of health benefits associated with it.
It's absurd to equate stevia, a naturally occuring herb of no dietary significance, with "high carb junk food"
The problem is that using Stevia maintains an addiction to sweets.
Possibly this abnormally sweet taste and its effect in the brain also messes up body weight regulation / hunger / cravings / insulin in other more discreet ways but that's speculative.
I have no concerns about having stevia in my diet. As a previous sugar addict I get no cravings at all from the stevia I have. I have not headed down a slippery slope into my previous addiction from having something sweet in my diet.
Sweetness comes from all kinds of foods, natural and not. if we are to question the use of stevia - we must question the use of berries in a low carb diet. Surely they are also adding a sweet taste? And additional carbs.
Try getting people giving up all forms of sweets...? it will never happen.. berries is sweet.. lots of LCHF foods are sweet.. coconut fluor has a sweet taste..
Personally I have these few times - maybe a couple of times a mounth, i dont consider myself addicted.. I find stevia and erytritol dont trigger a binge in the way other sweets do.. normal table sugar make me sick, stevia and erythritol dont affect me at all..
Anyone who's having doubts about artificial sweeteners (perhaps I should say non-caloric sweeteners instead) should really read this paper that Stephan Guyenet recently highlighted on his blog:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22683548
Also, Guyenet provides a great summary:
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.ie/2012/06/new-study-demonstrates-t...
These researchers basically created "knockout" mice, which had been genetically modified to prevent them tasting the sweetness of certain sugars, then showed that these mice did not get fat drinking water sweetened with those sugars. However, when something else was added to the water to make it palatable, the mice started to be fattened by the calories in the same sugar! The sugar only made them fat when they could taste the sweetness!
I have to say that this paper blew my mind. It's such an incredibly ingenious study. I could not help feeling more skeptical about artificial sweeteners after reading it.
Without palatability, the calories in the sugar did not cause obesity. However, combined with the palatability of the fat emulsion, the sugar calories did cause obesity.
If I can get my kids to eat ice cream made from eggs, grass-fed butter, coconut oil, cacao powder, and stevia, what's it to ya? Think that's a crap ton better than the other choices we're faced with on a daily basis?
Whilst I take people's point about not everything natural being good, I think we've determined the foods that are beneficial after 2 million years of eating them, thanks. Your defence of processed 'food' appears to illustrate beautifully your vested interest.
http://www.sweetleaf.com/about/fact-sheet
And comparing stevia to cocaine because they are both extracted from leaves is far fetched. A lot of things are extracted from plants.
The problem with stevia, in my opinion, is it tastes bad. I'd much rather go for honey or maple from time to time to get a sweet flavour.
So are you saying that stevia is infact bad for you? or does it just make you want to eat other sweet things that raise your bloodsugar.
i have given up eating all starches and no sugar, but i sometimes enjoy whipped cream with some stevia (1 tsp).
i seeme to have platoed at 130 kg (was 140) (im 193 cm tall) do you think stevia could be the cause?
any suggestions on how to loose more weight?
Today's brainscanning-techology; for example MRI and CT gives us a view in to the brain to see what happens with a heroin or alcoholic addict using the drug . Would it be a stretch to say that the same tehcnology can be used to see if sugar or stevia lights up the same area of the brain in a similar way as herion or alcohol does. If it does I argue that the two also is addictive.
Experiments like that have already been done, with fascinating results. Watch this:
http://www.dietdoctor.com/must-see-toxic-sugar-on-60-minutes
If you need sweets, eat fruit. If you find you can't defeat your cravings, realise that many fats also have a "sweet" taste and will fill you up, unlike sugar. Take a delicious spoonful of unrefined coconut oil, for example.
Maybe three times a year I make chocolate with coconut oil in the freezer, so I do keep a bottle of stevia. However I use it mostly to mask the bitter taste of the cocoa rather than for sweetness. That's the only thing I use it for.
Dopamin respons was the same as for drugs and alcohol, interresting. My addiction is beer. 50% sucrose in the maltose in beer I belive.
I drink a diet soda about once per week. I occasionally bake with Stevia.
I actually don't have a big problem with Stevia, it's probably better than the other artificial sweeteners and some studies have shown a benefit for blood pressure and glycemic control.
That being said, I understand Andreas's point. The mere sweetness of the compound can have part in maintaining an addiction for sweets.
Here is a good paper that discusses exactly that:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892765/
Artificial sweeteners are associated with increased weight gain and disease, in the context of a western, non-calorie controlled diet (many epidemological studies say so). There isn't any reason to think that Stevia is any different, despite being "natural."
If you are going to have a sweetener of some sort, Stevia may be your best bet. But the best option would probably be no sweetener at all.
Sex or gambling fall in to the category of "process addictions". They function to alter mood states by increasing certain hormone levels in the body (ex., adrenaline, endorphines). Behaviour is repeated to reinstate the mood alteration. The addiction is to the biochemically induced mind state as attained through the preferred process.
Substance addictions also deal with altered mind state. There is some clinical evidence that individuals who become addicted may experience heightened euphoria as a result of ingesting substances. The euphoric mind state is a powerful reward, and the substance required to achieve it has a profound impact on the body and brain trying to metabolize it.
Food "addictions" are a different class altogether. My own belief is that there is no "addiction" in the usual sense of the word, but there is a powerful hedonistic reward that tends to produce repetition of the behaviour. There is a new theory of obesity on the horizon that suggests basal ganglia functioning is impacted by certain preferred foods, which may bring us somewhat closer to the more classic understanding of addictions, but I don't believe we are there yet.
The presence of addiction in subjects who have suffered early abuse or neglect, or later trauma has been well established in the literature. The escape from a painful mood state is one of the operators behind many addictions. I do believe we see this in SOME obese subjects, but it is not a factor in most subjects, in my opinion.
If you wanted to refer to fast foods and sweeteners as highly rewarding and therefore heavily favouring behavioural repetition, you'd be accurate. To say this is an addiction is really pushing the concept.
There is a certain powerlessness over the compulsion associated with addiction that is not present in the face of a Big Mac or a spoon full of stevia. Addictions require a multi-modal therapeutic response; simple avoidance would not be effective, while avoiding sweeteners or fast foods may well be sufficient. It is important to understand the difference.
Main paper:
http://koso.ucsd.edu/~martin/FrankSucrosefMRI2007.pdf
blog post / Dr. Briffa
http://www.drbriffa.com/2010/01/14/artificial-sweeteners-fail-to-fool...
According to the New Scientist piece, the research, conducted by Paul Smeets at Utrecht University in the Netherlands, gave individuals a soft drink sweetened either with sugar or a blend of aritificial sweeteners (aspartame, saccharin, cyclamate and acesulfame potassium). Both drinks activated the brain, but only the one containing sugar caused part of the brain associated with reward (the caudate nucleus) to ‘light up’.
If stevia is processed with chemicals then you need to rethink your position on chemicals, not all are bad. Like vanilla extracts stevia is extracted with food grade alcohol, are you saying we shouldn't eat extracts?
And what about organic stevia, how is that bad? Where is the danger in having an organic sweetener that doesn't have any downside.
I think you are confusing different types of addiction, as others have pointed out. I do not have an addiction to sweets, I have a preference for a bit of sweetener in my coffee and other foods. That doesn't mean I am addicted.
I do in fact grow stevia on my patio, and I do in fact use it right off the plant in salads and tea. There are instructions on the internet on how to make extracts at home using food grade alcohol OR water as well.
Again, I am very disappointed in this article, I expect better from you and until now I have always gotten it.
I do have some blends of Stevia and Erytrhiol in my kitchen moste for visitors and occasionaly for some desserts.. perticuly for vipped cream, with organic vanilla powder!
Not so much for my own sake, more for my mothers. how others take a lot of sugar.. and I dont want that to happen in my house!!
We are not talking about a chemical concocted in a lab somewhere, this is a plant that you can eat raw. It is not highly processed, it is distilled the same way that flavoring extracts are made.
@Jaclyn I also don't use any mixes of stevia, just pure stevia, the only time I tasted bitterness was with a mixed version, pure stevia never tastes bitter to me.
On another note, I have a question about Stevia: I've tried it in many different forms, and it ALWAYS tastes horribly bitter to me. I can taste the sweetness, but there's also always an unpleasant bitterness to it. For me that makes it easy, I simply don't eat anything with Stevia in it.
It seems like we evolved with some protective mechanisms, including the ability to taste that bitterness and take it as a warning sign. And it seems like we should stay away from things that are that unpleasantly bitter (some bitter, i.e. in kale or tea, is not unpleasant) because they may be harmful to us.
I know not everyone perceives that bitterness in stevia, but many of us do. Is it really a "healthy" thing for us to ingest something that our senses are warning us to stay away from?