Wednesday December 7, 2016 | 21 comments
I have been enjoying the articles on World Tea News since its inception. They have always offered pertinent and valuable tea related stories and news. Not the case with a post by Stephenie Overman. Her piece is entitled “Sugar’s Calories May Serve as Destressor“.
My guess is that this “research” of 50 people, hardly a significant sample by the way, demonstrated that sugar, which adds calories, is the key to people feeling “destressed”. Who wants to bet that this was funded by the sugar industry? Yes, according the Stephenie’s post, the beverage industry has been switching out sugar for “non-nutritive sweeteners”. I just love that term – non nutritive. Certainly conjures up something that isn’t really healthy or worth eating. The reason the beverage industry has been ditching sugar is that it’s POISON. People are dying in record numbers because of sugar. It increases weight, contributes to obesity, diabetes and countless diseases that have plagued this country for decades.
The American Heart Association says this about sugar. “Getting too much added sugar in your diet could significantly increase your risk of dying from cardiovascular disease, according to a study published in April 2014”. If you want to really get some facts, watch the U Tube video put out by University of California featuring Dr. Lustig – who entertains and educates about the politics and facts about this dangerous substance. With over 6.5 million views, it’s easy to listen to while you finally get educated about sugar.
Bottom line my tea drinking friends; do not add sugar to your tea. Nibble something healthy along with your tea if you’d like to add a few calories – that’s IF this research is even valid with only 50 people. Again, my instincts tell me this was funded by the sugar industry. That’s just how they’d try to bring sugar back to the masses. We’re smarter than that. Sugar is bad no matter how you use it. I’m a fan of stevia – you’ve got to use only a touch or you get an after taste however. Please stay away from artificial sweeteners that are known carcinogens. Truth is, allowing your pallet to get used to enjoying the subtle flavors of tea without anything added, that should be your goal. Be patient and within a few weeks, you’ll be loving your tea straight up.
When a well respected company chooses to publish this type of “research”, it provides information to the public that is not in their best interest. This is how the sugar industry will try to gain a foothold back into the mouths of the masses. Everyone loves the taste of sugar and if we give them some “science” to support their habit, it makes it a bit easier to subcomb and justify the added sugar. Don’t be fooled. Sugar is not good for anyone. They can come up with countless pieces of research to show anything they want to show but really what they’re doing is providing miss information to the public when they choose to use sugar as one of the variables. If adding calories to reduce stress is the goal – using sugar is the worst choice that can be made. There are countless healthy options available. Please don’t be fooled into thinking you’re doing something good for yourself by reducing stress if you put sugar into your tea. You’re definitely NOT.
Fiona Wong, PhD, in a medical review of the research cited writes that “The differences between nutritive- and non-nutritive sweeteners and their ability to induce calm after acute stress might be explained by studies on the brain regions activated during the ‘wanting’ component of food reward. Both types of sweeteners have been observed to activate regions related to the primary taste pathway, but only sugar activates regions involved in taste reward. Thus, non-nutritive sweeteners may not be able to fulfill the regions of the brain associated with reward that results from the intake of calories. With regard to the ability of sugar to elicit tea-induced calmness, it has also been observed that sugar consumption can greatly reduce levels of the stress transmitter cortisol compared to sucralose consumption.
“Overall, this study reports that tea sweetened with sugar calms tea drinkers who have been exposed to an acute stressor, and this effect may be due to the greater number of calories found in sugar compared to non-nutritive sweeteners like stevia or sucralose,” she concludes.
In her view this is more about brain chemistry than tea chemistry. Together they appear to amplify the calming.
We all agree that the less sugar you consume, the better. Tea stands well on its own with many varieties showing a natural sweetness that is healthy, not harmful.
Dan Bolton, World Tea News
I would like to have seen healthy food items, in another group, not non-nutritive sweeteners, and how that would impact stress. Only using sugar, provides a positive nod to sugar, which should never be seen a positive light. Why even do legitimate research using sugar as a potential positive outcome when we know how hazardous it is to human health. Should we do research on carcinogens and find something positive in them? Non-nutritive sweeteners are beneficial for diabetics and those who need to keep calories down. We all are aware of the increasing statistic on obesity which has reached our most precious citizens – our children. I just can’t justify the release of this information. If scientists need to learn about the activation of “regions involved with taste reward”, go for it. The public has been told that stress is a killer and people need to find a way to reduce stress. Providing information about an unhealthy way to do so, by adding sugar to your tea, is not benefiting the public. World Tea News cannot prevent this type of research from happening but they can be selective about what they report on. An article that touts sugar as reducing acute stress is not something that benefits the general public.
To be clear. The article does not “tout” sugar, it merely reports on research that contributes to our overall understanding of how the beverages we consume impact our lives. Personally I am a “sugarless” tea drinker. If I sweeten it is with low-glycemic agave or honey. Stevia is a natural alternative I have championed for years. I think that many have discovered synthetic sugar alternates are not the answer. This study points to the fact that stevia did not replicate (at least in this limited study) the calming effect of sugar. This work was initiated without funding by sugar companies. The protocol used in this study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Arkansas (Fayetteville, AR, USA). I am encouraged by legitimate research that continues to explore and explain. Readers should follow the link below to judge for themselves the quality of this research. It met my test for legitimacy.
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep36537
I think you’re missing the point Dan. Yes, I did question the sample size but the real issue is – do we want to provide research to the public that underlines something potentially positive about sugar like stress reduction? Here’s a piece about the health benefits of tobacco. “The University of Melbourne confirmed the claims made by many smokers that tobacco itself is a strong appetite suppressant, and many use it to self-treat compulsive overeating disorders or obesity. Many smokers experience weight loss and decreased appetite after they begin smoking.”https://www.sott.net/article/221013-Health-Benefits-of-Smoking-Tobacco
Do you think that it would be responsible magazine reporting to write an article about this? Should we be reporting it as a weight loss tool given the incidence of obesity? We can find legitimate scientific research supporting these benefits however we know that smoking is a killer – as is sugar. That is my point. If you have issues with my word “tout”, the bottom line is, this article presents sugar, with science to back it up, as an agent to decrease acute stress.
Point taken Michelle
Thank you Dan.
Given your awareness of the hazards of sugar, why publish this type of research? To try to prove the validity of the research is missing the point entirely. Write a piece on L-Theanine, the calming agent in green tea if you want to bring in the issue of stress. Reporting on scientific research showing the calming benefits of sugar in your tea……..not sure why you’d do that or feel it was valuable information for the tea community. Yes, it’s about brain chemistry first and foremost. I have always held World Tea News in the highest esteem and mention you regularly in my posts. You have done an outstanding job in informing the international tea community of all things tea. I think you made a mistake with this one.
My grandmother had a leg removed from wet gangrene as a result of diabetes, so I’m always careful about sugar intake. Here’s something on similarity of cocaine and sugar: http://www.attn.com/stories/131/how-sugar-similar-cocaine
Research is done first and foremost to understand. This research set out to explain a common effect for many tea drinkers. Many people throughout the world use sugar in their tea.
I personally do not believe this was a mistake. You make sugar out to be an evil macronutrient that we shouldn’t touch. When in fact sugar in the proper proportions is perfectly healthy.
Sugar, a carb, is not more detrimental to your health than any othere carb out there. Any macronutrient in excess will cause problems. It all comes down to portion control and the accompanied macronutrients, which is something we should be teaching.
I for one say bravo to to Worldteanews
Jesse – please watch the video that is part of this post. Yes, everything in moderation is fine but as sugar is now in most everything, people are consuming excessive amounts in processed foods without being aware of it.
Michelle – on sugar – agreed. On spelling, not so hot. Pallet is what you truck goods stacked on. Palette is a board that artists mix their paints on – and by extension a range of colors. Palate relates to the roof of your mouth – and by extension your taste for what’s in your mouth.
A very common mistake.
Yours pickily, Nigel of Teacraft
Thanks for the correction Nigel. I am the worlds worst speller. When I sat for my doctoral dissertation, there was some talk of not passing me due to my spelling errors. This was back in time before personal computers. I try to give myself some slack about my spelling dysfunction but it is what it is. I’m so bad that it is not usual for me to be unable to find the correct spelling of some words – I even baffle google!
My first impulse was to correct the error but then your comment wouldn’t make sense so I’ll just have to let it stand. When Regena was my editor, a former high school English teacher, she was forever correcting my grammar and spelling.
Off subject but..Nigel, the article you were quoted extensively in Chemistry World on the chemistry of tea was really fabulous. My husband loves studying the chemistry of tea and I knew he’d want to read it, he did and loved it as well.
Since you corrected Michelle I will correct myself. “the article you were quote extensively in in chemistryworld.com…’ :)
Very interesting discussion. I think this is a very important topic. As a psychologist that works in primary care and physical rehabilitation settings in a rural hospital, I get to see regularly what the impact of dietary choices have on patients health. It is not a pretty picture.
I have a few comments that I believe are worth considering:
First, I wanted to comment on Jesse’s statements. Jesse, you stated “Research is done first and foremost to understand.” I completely agree with this statement, but with a strong caveat. It is very important to look at the context and function of the research. There is a great deal of politics in food (if interested, I highly recommend “Food Politics” by Marion Nestle). Research these days is often not done as pure science just for understanding. There is often an agenda involved in it, which necessarily causes either a clear overt bias, or at least an implicit bias. The results of this type of research should always be questioned. Not just the validity of it, but what function was it meant to serve. You next said “…sugar in the proper proportions is perfectly healthy. Sugar, a carb, is not more detrimental to your health than any other carb out there. It all comes down to portion control and the accompanied macronutrients, which is something we should be teaching.” Respectfully, I will have to disagree with you on this, but I think it’s important that we are all on the same page when we talk about sugar. Macronutrients are carbs, fats and protein). All carbohydrates are sugars. They’re saccharides, from mono to poly. So it’s important to know what type of sugar we are discussing. I am assuming that we are all referring to table sugar (sucrose). If we are in agreement with that, then I have to agree with Michelle because I, too, believe that refined sugar is, in fact, much more detrimental than other carbohydrates. Since all carbs are sugars in one form or another, the saccharide aspect of sugar isn’t all that different as you are suggesting (there are actually some slight differences [sucrose vs high fructose corn syrup etc, but we don’t need to go into that]). The difference, however, comes in when you look at the packaging. In what form are those sugars being consumed. I think most people would agree that consuming their sugar in the form of chard or an apple would be vastly more healthy than say consuming a teaspoon of refined sugar or drinking a bottle of soda. The big difference is in the amount of fiber contained in the carbohydrate (which helps the sugars be absorbed more slowly and more readily be made use of for energy on an ongoing basis. Depending on how much glucose is already in your blood stream from the added sugars from processed products, added sugar at home may be more than is needed by the body and therefore would be stored in the liver as glycogen or stored as fat. The other big difference is in the Nutrient Density of the food. Sugar (sucrose) is completely devoid of micronutrients (all the really important life sustaining stuff other than energy production – i.e. vitamins, minerals etc). Since sugar contains no life maintaining micronutrients, I think we can all agree that eating a carbohydrate that both provides energy and micronutrients would be an overall better dietary choice. Having said that, I am not at all suggesting that occasional sugar consumption is a bad thing. Who doesn’t love sugar (I for one am a super taster and have a major attraction to the sweet taste). The issue then becomes who is adding the sugar, in terms of what is the amount of dietary sugar they are already getting in their foods and does added sugar put them over the top and significantly increase the likelihood of all of the numerous metabolic disorders out there. In this country at least (USA), the average American consumes way more sugar normally contained in the store bought foods they consume regularly, than is healthy. Adding sugar to their tea, in my mind, completely defeats the health benefits of consuming real tea as part of their diet instead of soda or fruit juice.
Now a few comments about the study itself. I read the original study and this is what I understood from reading it.
1. I agree with Michelle that the sample size is clearly too small to make any significant scientific conclusions from the results. This, however, is actually irrelevant when you read one of my other comments further down.
2. The tea – the tea used in the study was “Unsweetened Lipton Tea Powder”. This is a refined powder made from black tea used for the purpose of adding to water to make a tea drink. All teas have L-Theanine, but at different levels. Like most other phyto-chemicals in tea, the l-theanine levels are going to vary depending on the type of tea, the growing region, climate etc). In addition, I don’t know what, if anything, processing tea into a powder does to the l-theanine levels (Nigel – maybe you can speak to this if you have some knowledge of it). Essentially I don’t have a clue as to what the l-theanine levels were. I bring this up only because I am curious what effect adding this as a variable would have had. L-theanine, as we all know, has a naturally relaxing effect over human physiology. In fact, I will often consume a cup of tea after I’ve been stressed as a way to relax. Now, do I know how much of the relaxation effect is due to l-theanine content vs the ritualized aspects of making and drinking a cup of tea vs placebo – no, I do not. But it’s still curious to me that they didn’t add some variable to look at the difference between the calming affects of l-theanine vs sugar.
3. The purpose of the study was to look at people’s emotional responses to sweet taste perception on stress, comparing sugar and sugar substitutes. Without going into a lot of detail (I already got carried away above), they found that sugar had a significant effect in self report of increased “tea-induced calmness”, only after drinking tea laced with the sugar. The variables they looked at were “sweetness intensity, overall liking, tea-induced calmness, and tea-induced pleasantness”. They found several other interesting effects based on some of the other variables, but they’re not relevant to this discussion. What the study actually determined was that it wasn’t any of the other perception variables that impacted stress. It essentially boiled down to the fact that the added sugar led to an increase in tea-induced calmness because it added calories. The hypothesis was that when people are stressed, they burn calories and have increased cortisol levels. Adding calories lowers cortisol and activates the food reward circuits in the brain and thereby induces calmness. If their hypothesis is accurate, and I do mean IF, then they could essentially have gotten the same effect if they gave people an orange or a banana (or a bagel for that matter), to eat after the stressor. But, as you will see in #4 below, that probably doesn’t matter, because the purpose, I believe, was just to get to look at what effects people emotionally when consuming a particular product.
4. The study took place at the University of Arkansas Sensory Service Center – this is particularly relevant, because these university based sensory research centers do food tasting research that is almost always funded by food corporations (context) looking to find out what qualities of their product are most appealing to consumers, and what additional qualities might they add to increase consumption of their products (function). Now in this instance, we can probably assume with a fairly high probability, that since the product tested was “Unsweetened Lipton Tea Powder”, that the research was fully funded by the Lipton Tea Company. Knowing this, we certainly could say that the purpose of the research was solely for understanding. I am absolutely positive that the Lipton Tea Company was seeking understanding, but most probably in the form of what they could say in their advertisements for their products to increase consumption, and to legitimize their claims. I will be curious to see if we start seeing Lipton Tea products (with added sugar) touted as being helpful for reducing stress or increasing a state of calm. If anyone sees that, let me know.
Well, that is my rant. I apologize if this seemed like overkill. I just think that it’s important for all of us to be educated consumers because there is so much manipulation of our food information and supply by corporations and governments, that we must be more proactive in taking charge of our food consumption.
Sandy, I thoroughly enjoyed your comment. Looking back my comment added very little to the subject but yours added a nice depth and understanding. Point 4 was particularly interesting! Good stuff!
Thanks Jesse. I appreciate your comment. It’s so easy for ALL of us to react to information automatically when it comes from a seemingly authoritative source. It’s just the way our brains/minds function from an evolutionary perspective. We needed to be ready to react quickly to potential threats with minimal information. As a result, our minds/brains make judgements/decisions with minimal information and then makes up the rest to fill in the gaps. That’s precisely why we all have to work harder to check things out for accuracy.
All we have to do is look at what’s happening in this country right now to know that lots and lots of poor decisions have been made on inadequate information.
I totally agree with that. Very valuable comment in the whole conversation. It gives an extra point of view for sugar, especially for tea drinkers. For many of us it is obvious not to add sugar to tea mostly because of the taste. Now, we have next argument in conversations like this. Thank you!
Michele is correct about the sample size which is to small to have any conclusions have meaning. The ‘Rule of Small Numbers’ applies, despite the interesting conversation.
Jesse (and other’s in this discussion) –
Thought you might be interested in this recent article in the NY Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/19/well/eat/a-food-industry-study-tries-to-discredit-advice-about-sugar.html?em_pos=small&emc=edit_hh_20161223&nl=well&nl_art=0&nlid=50678271&ref=headline&te=1&_r=0