Skip to content

Journal article

Different Sugar Substitutes Are Not All the Same

Sugar substitutes share a sweet taste, but individual compounds differ in how the body handles them and in their practical health considerations.

  • By Editorial Team
  • Published
  • 2 minutes read
Responsible editor
Bowls of sweeteners beside a stomach and intestines with molecular symbols.

“Sugar substitute” sounds like a single category, but the label covers compounds with very different chemical and physiological properties. Two products can both taste sweet without contributing the same amount of energy or behaving the same way once they enter the body. Treating all sugar substitutes as interchangeable therefore hides some important differences.

When a sugar substitute replaces some or all of the added sugar in a food or beverage, it can reduce the amount of added sugar in that product. High-intensity sweeteners are one group within the broader category of sugar substitutes. Because they are much sweeter than sucrose, only small amounts are generally needed, so their contribution to dietary energy at typical use levels is usually small or negligible. Sugar alcohols, or polyols, are different. Most are less sweet than sucrose, although their sweetness varies, and they generally provide less energy per gram. There is no single calorie value for the entire group because individual polyols are absorbed and metabolized differently .1,2

High-intensity sweeteners generally are not fermented by plaque bacteria in the same way as cariogenic sugars, and polyols are also generally considered noncariogenic or much less cariogenic than fermentable sugars. Individual polyols are not necessarily identical in their effects on oral bacteria or caries risk. These properties belong to the sweeteners themselves, not necessarily to the entire product. For example, an acidic sugar-free beverage may have little cariogenic potential from its sweetener but can still contribute to dental erosion. A product containing a sugar substitute should therefore not automatically be described as beneficial for dental health .2,3

Sugar alcohols also differ in gastrointestinal tolerance. They vary substantially in how completely they are absorbed. Those that remain in the intestinal lumen can draw in water and may later be fermented by colonic microbes, contributing to symptoms such as gas, bloating, or diarrhea when intake is sufficiently high. Tolerance differs among polyols and among individuals, so gastrointestinal effects are not uniform across the entire group .2,4

Aspartame illustrates another reason individual sweeteners sometimes require their own precautions. During digestion, aspartame is hydrolyzed to aspartic acid, phenylalanine, and methanol. People with phenylketonuria, or PKU, must carefully control phenylalanine intake and therefore need to avoid or restrict aspartame. FDA regulations require foods containing aspartame to carry the statement “PHENYLKETONURICS: CONTAINS PHENYLALANINE”, which addresses a specific metabolic concern for people with PKU .1,5,6

The label “sugar substitute” is therefore more useful as a description of what an ingredient replaces than of how that ingredient behaves. Sharing a sweet taste does not give different compounds the same metabolism, physiological effects, or practical considerations. Looking at the specific sweetener rather than the category name leads to a much more informative comparison.

References

  1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Aspartame and Other Sweeteners in Food. U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
    Source details
  2. Małgorzata Grembecka. Sugar alcohols—their role in the modern world of sweeteners: a review. European Food Research and Technology, 2015.
    Source details
  3. Prahlad Gupta et al.. Role of Sugar and Sugar Substitutes in Dental Caries: A Review. ISRN Dentistry, 2013.
    Source details
  4. Kauko K. Mäkinen. Gastrointestinal Disturbances Associated with the Consumption of Sugar Alcohols with Special Consideration of Xylitol: Scientific Review and Instructions for Dentists and Other Health-Care Professionals. International Journal of Dentistry, 2016.
    Source details
  5. EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS). Scientific Opinion on the re‐evaluation of aspartame (E 951) as a food additive. EFSA Journal, 2013.
    Source details
  6. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations. 21 CFR § 172.804—Aspartame. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations. Paragraph (d)(2).
    Source details

Conversation

Discussion

0 comments

No comments yet. Start the conversation.

Join the discussion

No account or email is required. Your display name and comment will be public.