WHO warns against using artificial sweeteners

I've tried to cut out soft drinks from my diet but its a losing battle

People should reduce the sweetness of the diet altogether, starting early in life, to improve their health.

This is the main point, but also what is the most difficult to achieve. People tend to use the easy exit of artificial sweeteners precisely because it is much more difficult to have a better diet without sweetness, but by now it has become obvious that doing this do not help in the long term so there is no real benefit on replacing sugars with these additives except on limited approaches.

A secondary point is that the report is based on strong evidence of lack of benefits, but weak evidence on a direct link between the artificial sweeteners and health problems, so it would be reasonable to think the problems observed can be more closely related to how they still promote cravings for sweet food (and the known risks that it brings) instead of a direct negative effect. Other studies currently being conducted will help understand this relationship better.

WHO make statement = WHO accept bribe

Nothing this organization says should be considered anything more than propaganda.

Presumably anyone drinking Coke instead of Diet Coke would put on more weight.

It's all very well saying "don't drink Coke", but summer will soon be upon us and cold drinks provide lots of relief. Having a drink with a taste can help motivate you to stay hydrated. I can only drink so much water and tea.

WHO make statement = WHO accept bribe

Any actual argument or are we just supposed to believe every public health organization around the globe that readily recognize the value of the WHO recommendations (and the openly available data that supports them) on their scientific value are just less capable than you?

Presumably anyone drinking Coke instead of Diet Coke would put on more weight.

I can think of many scenarios where this might not be true. My personal experience of losing weight only after I stopped using artificial sweeteners led me to look into it. Possible reasons your presumption might be wrong:

1-Artificial sweetener consumption may create an intense craving for more sugar/calories.

2-They may affect the body's metabolism in a way that causes you to retain more fat or process calories differently.

3-They may cause other conditions or illnesses that result in weight gain.

4-By tricking your tongue, your body prepares for an onslaught of sugar that never comes, the results of which we don't know.

5-People will consume more because they rely on the fake crutch of artificial sweeteners.

1-Artificial sweetener consumption may create an intense craving for more sugar/calories.

Yes. I believe cravings for sweets go away (maybe not completely) with time if one avoids sweets.

I cut carbs a while back. I bought stevia for when I wanted some sweetness, but I only used it once or twice.

If one wants to make their drinks sweeter, they might want to consider adding glycine, an amino acid that many use as a supplement. Glycine is almost as sweet as sugar (70%?).

4-By tricking your tongue, your body prepares for an onslaught of sugar that never comes, the results of which we don't know.

I heard about that too. I wonder if the body's response decreases with time, as the body "learns" that the sugar ain't comin whenever the tongue detects sweetness...

This is the main point, but also what is the most difficult to achieve.

No, this is the main point, and the first sentence of this article:

Artificial sweeteners, used to replace sugar in a vast range of products, do not help in losing weight and can have serious health effects, according to the World Health Organization.

No, this is the main point, and the first sentence of this article:

Anything in the quote that refutes the comment? If people were able to easily reduce the need for sweets in their diet it would be inconsequential the effect of artificial sweeteners, they would not be necessary in the first place.

Just go natural as much as possible and reduce or remove processed foods as much as possible (hard to do, I know). A good rule of thumb is if anything artificial/processed ingredients on the label, then avoid it (also hard to do).

The WHO telling us what we already know........its been common knowledge for years !! Yawn.

Just don’t drink fizzy pop all the time or sweeties or chocolate. It’s all about discipline and being sensible you see. When it’s hot like now I take a little flask of water with me, years since I had Coke or anything like that.

The WHO: "Sex up your preschool-age kids, but don't put Splenda in your coffee!"

Why on earth should I listen to these people???

*The World Health Organisation is facing a backlash over its controversial guidance for children's sexuality and gender.*

The WHO's guidelines suggests that children as young as four and under should be given sex education and 'explore gender identities.' 

In a document published to provide guidance for policymakers in Europe, the organisation claims that 'sexuality education starts from birth.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12082427/World-Health-Organisation-faces-backlash-sexuality-gender-guidance-schools.html

I'm pretty sure this has been a thing for decades. People who drink Diet Come Coke and other "diet" sodas are just lying to themselves.

Tho these drinks are not as bad as what I think is the biggest poisons of all, Monster, Red Bull and the rest of energy drinks.

Message to The WHO:

"Pick up my guitar and play

Just like yesterday

Then I'll get on my knees and pray

We don't get fooled again

Don't get fooled again, no, no

Yeah

Meet the new boss

Same as the old boss"

Science is always learning and adapting. All anyone can do is to expect science to learn more, make new recommendations, and follow the latest recommendations available that are agreed to by dis-interested parties.

So perhaps the paleo diet is really what humans should eat? Basically, if your food doesn't look like it came from a farm or orchard, maybe it shouldn't be a core part of what you eat.

Having too much of anything is always bad. Just enough seems to be the most reasonable goal to target. After all, too much water is deadly. Too much oxygen is deadly. Too much of anything is probably deadly.

With food intake, we need core foods (veggies) and treats (everything else). If we are drinking "diet" flavored water 3x a day, that's definitely too much. OTOH, perhaps 300ml once a week or less often doesn't harm anything. Is once a day still too much? Probably. Would once a month be safer than once a week or does it not matter in the big picture?

There are few absolutes that people can follow when it comes to their diets.

Is having Tamago Kake Gohan daily safe? I'd think not, but 1-2 times a week, seems to be fine for most people. There are always exceptions.

98% of the food we buy is raw. We are label readers because my spouse suffers from hives.

The WHO is slow to the draw again. This kind of news has been publicized for years, such as by the CDC, which is the world's leading medical authority.

The WHO is slow to the draw again. This kind of news has been publicized for years, such as by the CDC, which is the world's leading medical authority.

The CDC has not reported any review with the same information as the one this article is talking about, and it is not the "world leading medical authority", that is just a personal opinion. The materials from the own CDC recognize the WHO as the global authority and its recommendations and guidelines as worth following

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/28/13/21-2617_article

My father is a medical doctor and he confirmed that the CDC issued this same information years before. So, I looked it up, and there is it; easily accessible to all. He also confirmed that there is no other medical authority (even Australia's) that has the same level of respect and authority as the CDC and as a result, other countries' own medical organisations follow much of the CDC's advice, in contrast to that of the WHO, which he described as a politically unkempt mess of a group.

My father is a medical doctor and he confirmed that the CDC issued this same information years before.

That is hearsay, specially when no reference is given to actually prove this is the case, it is very easy to say something was presented before (and even more to say someone says so) but without any evidence this is still a baseless claim.

If a source was so easy to access there would be no problem in providing that reference, its absence proves mostly the opposite, that this information is new and therefore worth putting in an article.

other countries' own medical organisations follow much of the CDC's advice, in contrast to that of the WHO, which he described as a politically unkempt mess of a group.

The CDC explicitly contradicts this claim, made by nameless people without credentials, they consider the WHO strategies for public health worth following and recommending as proved by the reference.

Do you have a source or reference that says it is hearsay? Otherwise it is only your sole opinion.

Hearsay is defined as:

unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/hearsay

Saying someone else says something without providing a source to verify if this is actually the case is definetely hearsay. It would be the same as if someone else come and said 16 different Head of department in a medical university said the doctor you mention is completely wrong. Would this be enough to prove to you that all these very important experts actually exist and said that?

A medical doctor is a valid source by the way

Only as long as the person saying is a doctor can show credentials and you can prove he did say something, if not that is not a source.

Where is your reference for this fantastical thought?

Two comments back, where the CDC describes the benefits and rationale of following the WHO advice in an actual reference (not hearsay) where people with names and credentials conclude it in a scientific report. There is no point in pretending a reference is not there just because it disproves what you believe, anybody can easily see that reference still.

Trump ruined the CDC's standing in the world. However, in the US the CDC isn't where dietary recommendations from the govt come. That's the FDA, which has always been slightly-to-heavily corrupted by corporate "food" studies that have sales as a primary goal, not the health for people.

Other countries often have better, truly factual, studies about different foods and additives. I think this is mainly because their health care systems are govt funded and keeping costs down is more important than selling more pills to make symptoms controlled. In the US, health care is a business where they want everyone to need 5-20 pills a day to maintain. There's little interest in solving long term health issues. They'd rather sell some pills for $3000/month to 20+ million people than to have doctors put people on a raw-food diet. They want customers for life, not cheap solutions that remove the root cause ... like eating right and some exercise.

That is hearsay, specially when no reference is given to actually prove this is the case, it is very easy to say something was presented before (and even more to say someone says so) but without any evidence this is still a baseless claim.

You even quoted the source I mentioned--the CDC. So even by your personal definition, it is not hearsay.

You even quoted the source I mentioned--the CDC. So even by your personal definition, it is not hearsay.

No, the medical professional you mention is still nameless and without any credentials, and you have produced no reference to prove this person every said anything.

The actual reference provided from the CDC completely contradicts what you claim some nameless person said, by recognizing the reference you are also accepting the CDC do consider the WHO a global authority to follow, including their novel reports about artificial sweeteners.