"Real" or "Artificial"

    First, I apologize for not getting back to my blog for a while. I have moved cross the U.S. and taken a new job that is quite a bit different from my previous job -- so it's been easy to get distracted. I'll try to post more regularly again.
    There is a tendency for people to talk about food items in terms of "real" or "natural" versus "artificial". In reality, there isn't such a dramatic division between the two. Sucrose is "natural" in that it occurs, without chemical manipulation, in nature and in food items. But, table sugar is far from "natural" as it is necessary to do a lot of refining to have it available in the form that we use it. However, although it is not "natural" nor is it "artificial" as the chemical substance is not different from that found in life.
    From the other direction, a chemist can duplicate a chemical compound found in nature. There is no difference between it (which is "artificial") and that which was "natural". Many flavorings, used in food, are of this nature. But there is actually a difference -- the one found in nature is mixed with many other flavors, textures, and other compounds (including inorganic fibers). Nature is rarely "pure". Sometimes this means the laboratory-created ingredient is "better" and sometimes it is not.
    From the previous blogs, we have tried to decide what is the reality behind the names used in marketing of sweeteners. Once again, we find that it is a "gray" area -- some "natural" sweeteners are rarely used as found in nature. Other "artificial" sweeteners may be present in inert (does not interact with other substances) forms -- or they may be metabolized (broken down into building blocks by the body).
    So, which is better? In answering that question, I will first say that I am not a food chemist, researcher, or any person who has a degree in a related area. I am a generalist.
    My general feeling of analysis is based on experiential analysis -- what happens, what can be observed, how is it used? In other words, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and lays eggs like a duck then it might just very well be a duck or, at least, something you can call a duck.
    When the body tastes something sweet, there are a number of reactions that the body undergoes. This is as a reaction to the quality "sweet". The body will react to this "sweetness" regardless of the source of the quality. Sucrose, Fructose, Sucralose, Stevia, and so forth will all make the body react because it is reacting to the defining quality of "sweetness". We can observe the body salivating. We can observe the swallowing reflex.
    We can not easily observe the internal reactions -- and this is where it is difficult to compare and "prove" results. Although it makes sense that the body will react internally to "sweetness" the same independent of the source -- I cannot prove it. Let's say that it is true -- what does that mean? Mostly, it means the body's metabolism will start trying to process the substances with which it associates sweetness. Insulin will be produced and gastric juices will be increased to break it into smaller building blocks and to store energy.
    So, the body does all these things based on "sweetness". What happens when it is NOT the substance for which the body has developed these reactions? What happens when insulin is released and there is nothing for it to react against? What happens when the metabolism tries to break down an inert substance? What happens when the body says "absorb" and the substance cannot be absorbed?
    I don't know the answers. I can make guesses but I do not know the answers. But I am rather certain that I do not want my body to be used as a test bed to determine the long-term reactions and effects. I know that there are various undesirable effects from refined table sugar -- but I know them and (although not in the refined version which has only been easily available for a century or two) it has been in use by people for a long time.
   "Natural" is not always good. "Artificial" is not always bad. But, in the area of food items, one can also look at it as "what is the body used to", 'how was it designed".
    That's my two cents on the subject. I'll stick to regular sugar. What do you think?

How Sweet it Is; sugars and the body

    Our bodies, when we pay attention to them, include a group of tastes. These are usually referred to as sweet, sour, bitter, salty, and umami. They work by the chemicals activating  specific sets of nerves on the tongue. Bitter tastes are associated with poisons and sweet with high-energy foods. It is rare, in nature, for one taste to dominate and this causes a huge set of possibilities. Also, the "flavor" of foods is how the brain interprets the taste, smell, and texture of the food in combination.
    Since sweet tastes are an indication of higher-energy (calorie) foods, our bodies tend to favor sweet foods. Sweet tastes also activate a swallowing reflex within the mouth. (If a person is dehydrated but has trouble swallowing, try adding a single teaspoon of sugar to a glass of water.)
    In the past, a "taste" for sugar has not been a problem as, within most of history, getting enough food has been a much greater problem than eating too much. With modern food processing, concentrated sweetness is a cheap method of making food more appealing and, thus, has become a problem for many people.
    Natural sugars are a group of carbohydrates called saccharides. These may be monosaccharides which include glucose (a "blood sugar"), fructose (a "fruit sugar"),  and galactose. Disaccharides include sucrose ("table sugar"), maltose ("grain sugar"), and lactose (a "dairy sugar"). I put these common referents in quotes because, although associated with these types of foods, the sugars are not exclusively in these foods. Other substances can also activate the sweet sensors of the tongue. These include a group of chemicals called glycosides, some proteins and amino acids, and even some inorganic compounds.
    All fruits and vegetables include sugar as it is a by-product of the process of photosynthesis (conversion of water and minerals into food using solar energy). Some vegetation is considered a primary sugar source because the concentration of sugar is sufficient to warrant extraction and can be used directly as a sweetening agent for foods during cooking. Three of these are sugarcane, sugar beets, and Stevia leaves (which includes a glycoside rather than a saccharide)
    Historically, natural sugars have been used as sweeteners -- adding to food to make them more enjoyable to eat. It is possible, by the process of extraction, to increase the percentage of sugar by eliminating the fiber (pulp) and leaving a solution of sugar and water (still including other water soluble vitamins and mineral compounds). A final method of concentration reduces, or eliminates, the amount of water and non-sweet compounds until only relatively "pure" sugar remains.
    From the body's point of view, the unprocessed sugars are what the body was designed to appreciate. Eating an orange, combined with the pulp, is healthy (in moderation). Orange juice,with the pulp extracted, is much less healthy -- and a tablespoon of sucrose is the least healthy. Our bodies were not designed to deal with "pure", refined, sugars and making use of such within a diet can cause various problems, including an overwhelming of the pancreas causing diabetes.
    In order to combat problems associated with natural sugars -- including high calorie intake and tooth decay (the sticky sugar can remain on the teeth as food for bacteria) -- humans have created "sugar substitutes". Many of these substitutes activate the sweet sensors on the tongue to a higher degree than natural sugars. This means that a much smaller amount may be used for equivalent sweetness (increasing profits and decreasing any caloric intake that may still exist).
   This sounds like a win-win for producers of food as well as consumers but, as we will cover in the next blog, fooling "mother nature" can cause the body to react in ways that are not easily foretold.