Why Sugar-Free Sweets Are a Bad Move
They won't help your waistline or your teeth
By Jane Yager, Newser Staff
Posted Jun 14, 2010 8:41 AM CDT
PEEPS(R) Sugar-Free Marshmallow Hearts with "Splenda(R)".   (PRNewsFoto/Just Born, Inc.)

(Newser) – A growing number of Americans are turning to sugar-free cookies, soda, gum, and candy to help them lose weight. But unless you're diabetic, sugar-free sweets are probably a bad dietary move, the LA Times reports. Here are some of the reasons why:

  • In most cases, the calorie difference is negligible: While two regular Oreos have 107 calories, two fat-free Oreos have 100.

  • Some research shows that artificial sweeteners actually trick the body into craving more calories than it otherwise would.
  • Consumed in excess, artificial sweeteners can have laxative effects.
  • More seriously, refined carbs—which are just as present in sugar-free as sugared sweets—are linked to higher risks of diabetes and heart disease.
  • They won't even help you avoid cavities: Bacteria that cause tooth decay feed off carbohydrates as well as sugar.

View 1 more image
More From Newser
My Take on This Story
To report an error on this story,
notify our editors.
Why Sugar-Free Sweets Are a Bad Move is...
9%
30%
16%
18%
19%
8%
Show results without voting
You Might Like
Comments
Showing 3 of 10 comments
AustinFound
Jun 14, 2010 11:08 PM CDT
This list is saying sugar-free is bad and sites fat-free foods as an example? And comparing/contrasting sugars and carbs? Sugars ARE carbs! This author needs to step away from the keyboard and take a 100 level nutrition course.
VenturaCapitalist
Jun 14, 2010 9:12 PM CDT
"Consumed in excess, artificial sweeteners can have laxative effects." Watch it! Tiny Altoids are "zero calories." They're made of Sorbitol. Don't stray too far from the bathroom.
Chad
Jun 14, 2010 6:34 PM CDT
Sugar-free gum is not "a bad dietary move" and should be excluded from that list.