Sugar, Substitutes and Virus

To my dad, Leonid, who would be 100 in 2024.

In the last years of his life, my dad, a synthetic chemist who dedicated almost 60 years to developing new medicines, was very interested in sugar and sugar substitutes. I recently went through his computer archives and found records related to this topic. It has been ten years already, but it seems to me that all of this has become even more relevant in our time, linked to the sad results of the coronavirus infection. Here’s a passage, for example:

“Classification of sugars and sweeteners. These are two different concepts. They cannot be combined because they play completely different roles. Sugars are nourishing products and sweeteners - a cheating of receptors and an attempt to deceive nature. There is a class of carbohydrates and a set of compounds with a sweet taste. The first was created by God and the second - by the devil. A scientist must be able to distinguish them. Sometimes, there is an attempt to pass off a sweetener as sugar.”

Or about the benefits of brown sugar:

“Brown sugar is simply 98% sugar. It is no more useful but no more harmful than white. Let’s leave questions of taste and aroma to connoisseurs. The 2% impurity of molasses is of no importance. There are no empty, harmful, or good calories. Let’s not get stuck on this issue - there is none. Only profit has changed. It’s time to start looking at the issue of white and brown as a single question of overall sugar consumption. There are enough questions without it. Do we need sugar as a food product at all? Wouldn’t it be better to go back to pre-Columbian times, give up questionable sugar, obesity, and undoubtedly harmful rum, and become unpretentious but healthy?”

And here’s an opinion about specialists’ views:

“Thousands of modest, anonymous, sell-out scientists (sometimes illiterate), journalists, popularizers, science historians write numerous science-like articles, research, reports on studies that have not been conducted by anyone, reviews, statistics, direct and veiled advertising, classifications, scary stories, advice, thanks for advice, weight loss recipes, diets, doctors’ conversations, etc.”

The COVID-19 epidemic has been wreaking havoc worldwide for six months, but it seems that the United States has borne the brunt — unequivocally leading in terms of infection rates and mortality. What sets the US apart, and what has the leader of the free world been guilty of? Reliable statistics are not to be expected, but it is clear that the sick and deceased are primarily unhealthy, old, and more. How do Americans differ from other nations? Well, any foreign tourist will tell you: “by the number of overweight and extremely obese individuals.” Let’s not focus on racial morbidity statistics (readily available) but rather limit ourselves to general figures. Here’s a brief quote and charts from the Wikipedia article “Obesity in the United States”:

“... According to the CDC, adults are defined as aged 20 and over. The obesity rate has steadily increased since the initial 1962 recording of 23%. By 2014, figures from the CDC found that more than 36% of US adults and 17% of children were obese. The National Center for Health Statistics at the CDC showed in their most up-to-date statistics that 42% of US adults were obese as of 2017-2018...

...The overweight + obese percentages for the overall US population are higher, reaching 39% in 1997, 45% in 2004, and 57% in 2007. In 2010, 66% of American adults and 17% of American children were overweight or obese, and 63% of teenage girls became overweight by age 11. In 2013, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) found that 58% of all American citizens were overweight or obese. The organization estimates that 75% of the American population will likely be overweight or obese by 2020.”

Here’s a graph showing the growth of overweight individuals in the USA — people with normal weight are close to disappearing. A significant increase began around 1980.

And here’s a picture confirming the leading position of the USA.

The numbers are impressive, although most likely not precise — one can argue about classifications and criteria, and many factors are probably leading to mass obesity. However, sugar consumption clearly plays a significant role. Sugar has been and is used in gigantic quantities in many food products, especially in baked goods and soft drinks. For example, a 2-liter bottle of cranberry drink contains 310 grams of sugar (1200 Kcal!), regular (non-diet) Coca-Cola — 250 grams (840 Kcal)! The advantage here is threefold: firstly, it’s delicious; secondly, it stimulates thirst — you want more; and thirdly, sugar is the best preservative — these bottles can be stored for years in warehouses, and the liquid will not spoil — microbes cannot survive at such a concentration of sugar.

Dreadful, the reader might say, but I’ve known about it for a long time — sugar is “white death” - scientists have determined it(!), and I only drink Diet Coke, which has no sugar: the label says 0% sugar, zilch. Alas, this is the very misconception my dad writes about. There’s no sugar, but it’s sweet — a sugar substitute is added to it — Aspartame; that’s why the taste of diet cola is so unpleasant, and people suffer in vain... The introduction of sugar substitutes into food products coincides with the beginning of the obesity epidemic — the 1960s, and it has only increased since then. To start with, here’s a short excerpt from the joint report of my mom and dad titled “Sugar and its Substitutes” at the Boston Scientists Club, which you can find on my website, www.dimus.me, in the “NMP reports” section:

“Pleasant taste and the rapid energy boost from sugar lead to its excessive consumption. According to WHO, modern humans consume sugar 3-4 times more than the physiological norm. Excess sugar in the body leads to obesity, cardiovascular diseases, and diabetes. Obesity is a disease that has affected our society. Something had to be done, so fat-free products, light oils, and zero-calorie drinks appeared on the market. Human thought began working on creating a substance that, like sugar, would have a sweet taste but would not have energy value. Such a substance was found back in 1879 — German chemist Falberg obtained the imide of orthosulfobenzoic acid, which he accidentally discovered to have a sweet taste. This substance was named Saccharin. Saccharin is the first synthetic sugar substitute; it is 500 times sweeter than sugar and is not absorbed by the body!

Another widely used synthetic substitute is Aspartame. It is 200 times sweeter than sugar. Its molecule consists of two amino acids, so it participates in metabolism, but its energy value is significantly lower than that of sucrose. There are studies indicating the harmfulness of Aspartame to the human body. Nevertheless, it is the second most widely used sugar substitute after Saccharin. It is used in over 6000 food products and beverages, often with Saccharin...

Sucralose=Splenda - chlorinated sucrose

At the end of the 20th century, the fashionable sweetener became Sucralose, sold under the trade name ‘Splenda.’ This sugar substitute is 600 times sweeter than sugar. Sucralose is obtained by chlorinating sugar; its molecule contains three chlorine atoms. Sucralose manufacturers claim its harmlessness, emphasizing that this sweetener is made from a natural product — sucrose — and that the chlorine atoms in its molecule are the same as in table salt. But this is deceit...”

The trend towards “natural” products and searching for new sweeteners did not escape the industry’s attention. A natural substance called Steviol, derived from the Stevia plant through photosynthesis, was discovered, possessing sweetness 150 times greater than sucrose. The native land of this honey herb is Brazil and Paraguay. In 2004, WHO experts temporarily approved Stevia as a food additive with an allowable daily intake of 2 mg per kg. The Stevia trend will likely pass, and some new miraculous remedy will emerge. However, we think the problem is much more profound — the search for a sugar substitute is an unhopeful idea!”

Let’s add not only unpromising but also harmful. Using non-absorbable sweeteners leads to obesity much faster than regular sugars, and here’s the mechanism.

Let’s see what happens to the human digestive system when they consume a glass of liquid (diet soda) with a synthetic sugar substitute.

1. Taste receptors on the tongue signal to the brain that a sweet product has been consumed (for the body, this is necessary glucose!).

2. The brain orders all digestive organs to be ready.

3. The pancreas starts producing Insulin intensively to transport glucose into cells, and the stomach secretes gastric juice, but there is no glucose; it does not arrive.

4. The released Insulin takes the remaining sugar in the blood, lowering sugar levels below average, and a hunger signal reaches the brain.

5. The response signal is the appearance of appetite, and the person starts eating. What do we have in the fridge? Ultimately, overeating occurs, and as a consequence, obesity.

Sugar substitutes deceive the body and disrupt its well-functioning digestive system, which has been established over centuries. These disruptions lead to diabetes and other diseases, and then there’s no way around Splenda and Insulin intake.

The use of sugar substitutes shifts responsibility from the company — the manufacturer — for advertising health-hazardous products, claiming “There’s NO sugar!” and from the individual — the consumer — for controlling sweet consumption: “I only use Splenda in my tea!”, with the result evident on the face and waistline. It’s better to eat sugar, which is also necessary for normal brain development, especially in children, but that’s a topic for another time. Perhaps the Hong Kong flu of 1969 was not as destructive in its consequences as the current coronavirus — after all, the widespread use of sugar substitutes was just beginning.

©Dimus 2020, 2022, 2024(en)