All you need to know about sugar and alternative sweeteners
Eighteen months ago I was overweight and underwhelmed with life. I was tired all the time, felt generally unwell and was cranky often. My mother had been at me for a while about quitting sugar but at the time I didn’t think I really ate all that much of it. By chance, I came across a book called Sweet Poison. Author David Gillespie described feeling much the same way as I had been and, as I had a bit of time off, I decided to go ahead and read his book.
Gillespie, a lawyer who was once 40kg overweight and about to become father of six under six, decided to examine all the evidence around diet, exercise and weight. Although not a scientist, his objective and thorough research looked at all the science available and, on the strength of overwhelming evidence, led him to the conclusion that sugar was the culprit. As an almost-law-graduate myself, his evidence-based approach appealed.
For me, reading this book was life-changing. I quit sugar cold turkey, lost 17 kilos in seven weeks and have not looked back. I now believe without a doubt that sugar does, in fact, make you fat. What makes it worse is that being fat does more than just damage your image: it makes you sick. Sometimes, it makes you very sick.
So what is it about this sticky substance that makes it so dangerous? Why does something that tastes so good do so much damage? In a nutshell, the answer lies in the way sugar in your blood affects various hormones that control both appetite and how your body uses and stores energy.
As we know, the human body is a complex machine. Although medicine has progressed in leaps and bounds over the past couple of centuries, there is still a lot that doctors don’t understand about the way our bodies work, which is why doctors sometimes get it wrong. According to Gillespie, a growing body of research and several high-profile doctors in the US, for the past 50 years the diet industry has had it all wrong. We shouldn’t be going low-fat, he says; instead, we should be going low-sugar.
It seems, however, that getting the diet industry to change its tack is proving somewhat difficult. Not least because of the enormous influence of the packaged food industry; one that for the past century has relied on sugar to sell its products.
Sugar is addictive. I know, because I felt the withdrawals when I gave it up. They were not unlike what people describe when quitting alcohol or narcotics. I had headaches, I was tired, my muscles ached, I had nausea for the first few days and I just didn’t want to get out of bed.
When sugar was introduced to the food industry by the coffee and cocoa merchants from Asia and India, it became obvious pretty quickly that if sugar is added to food people will buy more of that food. It’s a capitalist’s dream. So, not surprisingly, for the past 100 years or so, sugar has become an increasingly large part of our diets. It is insidious. It’s in almost everything we buy pre-packaged.
As our sugar consumption has grown, so have rates of obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, autoimmune diseases, gastro-intestinal diseases, cancer … and the list goes on.
Obesity has been epidemic in the Western world for some time and now countries like China, which 50 years ago had an obesity rate of zero, are quickly catching up. It’s clear that something has to be done. Being fat can cause diabetes, heart disease and heart attack, respiratory problems, stroke and, ultimately, an early death.
Whatever we have been doing to address the weight problem is clearly not working. But, once we understand the way sugar works in our bodies, it becomes pretty obvious that it is the sugar that has to go. Not so much the fat. We now know there are good fats and bad fats, but the fat issue is for another story.
The lowdown on sugars
Ironically, sugar is nature’s way of telling us what foods are safe to eat. We are designed to seek out sweet foods for two reasons: first, if the food is sweet it is less likely to be poisonous and kill us; and second, the sweeter the food, the more energy it is likely to provide. In hunter-gatherer societies the identification of sweet foods would have been pretty important.
There are many versions of “sugar”: table sugar, brown sugar, palm sugar and honey, among others. However, from a chemical point of view, when you break these substances down into their base components, there are actually only three: glucose, fructose and galactose. Lactose (the sugar that is in milk) is one glucose molecule and one galactose molecule; maltose (a disaccharide found in malt products and germinating cereals) is two glucose molecules; and ordinary table sugar, or sucrose, the type we are most familiar with, is 50 per cent glucose and 50 per cent fructose. Fructose, the major monosaccharide found in fruit, is by far the sweetest of the three simple sugars, glucose is about half as sweet as fructose and galactose is only very mildly sweet.
The three simple sugars occur naturally and in various combinations in many foods, including fruit and vegetables. In fact, pretty much the only foods that don’t contain any sugars are pure proteins, although these eventually do break down and convert to glucose. Fructose is found mainly in fruits, vegetables and honey. Before it was discovered that fructose could be refined and manufactured commercially, traditional diets would have been relatively low in fructose, and when fructose was consumed it would have been consumed in conjunction with the fibre present in the whole food, which slows down the absorption and therefore the processing of the sugar. When sugar is refined and added to foods, we consume much more of it, minus the fibre.
The biochemistry of sugars
In his book, Gillespie gives quite a comprehensive explanation of how sugars behave on a molecular level but, put simply, according to him, “Fructose behaves differently from anything else we eat.” Basically, everything we eat is eventually broken down and converted to glucose, as glucose is the only fuel our bodies are able to use for energy. The one thing our bodies cannot convert to glucose, and hence cannot use as fuel for energy, is fructose. Fructose is metabolised by the liver and turned into fat.
Fat is not all bad, though. In the right quantities, fat is your body’s way of ensuring that if you can’t find anything to eat you have a reserve tank of fuel. When you eat, a complex chemical process involving multiple organs, enzymes and hormones takes place in your body to turn the food you eat into useable energy, but the fuel doesn’t last long. Luckily, you have two pretty clever mechanisms for storing a little extra so that, if you don’t eat again before the immediate fuel runs out, you don’t just fall over dead.
First, your body stores a reserve of energy called glycogen mainly in the liver with smaller amounts also present in the muscles. You are able to store enough glycogen for about 20 hours worth of energy. This is the first place energy will be drawn from when the immediate supply (glucose in the blood) runs out. The second mechanism is where the fat comes in. Fat is your third and final supply of energy. Unlike glycogen, the body’s capacity to store fat is unlimited. In the past, this was essential for the survival of hunter-gatherers who had irregular food supplies.
The ability to store fat is like the body’s back-up plan so that when all the other available energy sources have been used up, your body will begin to break down fat stores, converting them back to glucose to be used as energy. Despite your body’s ability to store endless amounts of fat, you are actually, according to Gillespie, “thin by design”. The complex processes at work in the digestive system are designed to ensure that you eat only as often and as much as you need to, and that you store only minimal amounts of body fat. Fructose, however, interferes with these processes designed to delicately balance your energy needs with your energy intake and maintain a healthy weight. It does so in two ways.
The first problem with fructose is it doesn’t go through the normal processes like other foods. Because fructose cannot be converted to useable energy, it skips straight to being stored as fat. Fructose cannot be processed by the digestive system; it can only be metabolised by the liver. The only thing the liver is able to do with it is to convert it to fat stores. It does this very quickly, unlike the process involved in converting excess glucose to fat, which is relatively slow in comparison. Given that in the 21st century we don’t often have to go for days without food, we generally don’t need to call in that spare tank, so the fat just continues to accumulate.
What makes the problem worse is that the body fat that results from fructose consumption is visceral fat; that is, fat that builds up around vital organs. Visceral fat is far more dangerous than subcutaneous (under the skin) fat in terms of health and wellbeing. While subcutaneous fat may be unsightly, visceral fat is downright deadly. Frighteningly, visceral fat can be present without significant subcutaneous fat. What that means is it’s possible to be thin on the outside but fat on the inside, so people can be unaware that they are carrying dangerous fat stores around their organs, which can lead to diabetes, fatty liver and heart disease.
The fact that fructose is metabolised immediately to fat is perhaps not the major problem, though. The other problem with fructose is somewhat more sinister. It is to do with appetite and the way that the hormones you produce in response to eating control your appetite. Normally, when you eat, there is a spike in your blood glucose levels. This in turn triggers the release of two hormones: insulin and leptin. Insulin does many things but, most importantly, it regulates the levels of glucose in your blood and enables cells to use the circulating glucose for energy. Without insulin, you are unable to use the glucose and you will die. As part of its job to regulate blood glucose levels, insulin also tells your brain when to stop eating. When your brain detects insulin, a message is sent to the stomach and you get that “full” feeling to tell you when you have had enough to eat.
Since insulin reduces blood glucose so quickly, the appetite regulation from insulin is short-lived. To ensure that you don’t eat again too quickly, insulin causes the body to produce another hormone, leptin, and it is leptin that provides you with long-term appetite control. Your body is actually designed to be thin. It is designed to eat just what you need for energy and maybe a little extra to store for emergencies, and that’s about it. There is a very good system in place for regulating body weight.
Your body, however, doesn’t react to fructose in the same way as it does to any other food. It has been found that fructose actually blocks the hormones that tell you when you have had enough, so you keep eating, and eating, and eating. You end up eating way more than you need and you feel hungry again sooner, so you eat again. Combine that with the fact that fructose can’t be used for fuel and can only be stored as fat and you have a pretty serious problem on your hands.
While both insulin and leptin regulate appetite, leptin also regulates fat storage. Leptin is actually produced by fat cells in response to insulin. In theory, the more fat you have, the more leptin you will produce, and a reduced appetite should cause you to use up any excess fat stores. Because fructose interferes with the appetite control and fat storage processes, it not only makes you overeat but it makes your body store more and more fat. Gillespie sums it up well when he says, “We can eat as much fructose as we can shove down our throats and never feel full for long. Every gram of fructose we eat is directly converted to fat. There is no mystery to the obesity epidemic when you know those simple facts. It is impossible not to get fat on a diet infused with fructose.”
The proof is in the MRI
While Gillespie, along with the prominent American endocrinologist Dr Robert Lustig, has been trying to tell us that fructose, not fat, is the real enemy for a while now, not surprisingly they have had some pretty fierce opposition. Add to that the fact that it is pretty hard to change long-held collective beliefs and there are still many who have their doubts. Low-fat has become the mantra of the diet and nutrition industries and it seems we are reluctant to let it go or modify it. On the most basic level, it seems logical: don’t eat fat and you won’t get fat. Unfortunately, there is something clearly wrong with that. The more low-fat foods we eat, the fatter we seem to get.
Recently, Dr Robert Sherwin, head of Endocrinology at Yale University in America, conducted a study on the way the brain responds to the ingestion of different sugars, using MRI imaging. After feeding participants with either glucose or fructose, an MRI machine monitored brain activity. The study found that ingestion of glucose reduced brain activity in the area of the brain that regulates appetite but fructose did not. In other words, when participants were fed glucose they felt less hungry. When they were fed fructose, they did not. In addition, glucose triggered feelings of satiation and fullness but fructose did not.
Sherwin concluded that the study demonstrated what Gillespie was saying, namely that fructose stops you from feeling full and causes you to overeat. When you consider the simple mathematical equation of energy in versus energy out, it seems obvious that if we constantly overeat and live sedentary lifestyles, it’s inevitable that we will end up seriously overweight.
Beyond fat: Sugar and disease
As mentioned, aside from making people overweight, sugar has been linked to many other diseases, including fatty liver disease, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, candida overgrowth, autoimmune diseases and even cancer. The research on the links between sugar consumption and disease is still in its infancy. At the moment, there is very little definitive research to quote in support of the theory that sugar causes disease, although common sense and anecdotal evidence tell us this is the case. There are, however, several diseases that various studies have linked directly to sugar consumption, the most prominent being type 2 diabetes, fatty liver disease and candida overgrowth.
It has long been known that a large waistline is a strong predictor for type 2 diabetes. American endocrinologist Dr Robert Lustig published a study in February 2013 in which he suggested there is a strong causal link between sugar consumption and type 2 diabetes. Lustig first came into the public arena with his war against sugar when his lecture, Sugar: The bitter truth, went viral after it was uploaded to YouTube in 2009. He famously compared sugar to drugs like heroin and cocaine in terms of both its addictive nature and its damaging impact on health.
In spite of his critics, Lustig has continued with his bid to educate the public about the dangers of sugar. It’s a subject he is very passionate about. The research Lustig conducted carried on from his book, Fat Chance: Beating the Odds Against Sugar, Processed Food, Obesity and Disease. The study was quite controversial and has been criticised by many in the diet and nutrition industries. It’s worth noting, though, that some of Lustig’s harshest critics have a significant vested interest in the processed food industry, so it’s hardly surprising they find Lustig’s theory a hard pill to swallow.
The data, though, is striking. The incidence of type 2 diabetes has grown exponentially at a similar rate as the increase in sugar availability around the world. Not only has the incidence of type 2 diabetes grown, but the average age of onset has been falling. There are now thousands of children being diagnosed with the disease, which was extremely rare 50 years ago. Diabetes is a serious disease. Among other things, it can cause blindness and lead to lower limb amputation, kidney disease and cardiovascular disease. Diabetes is associated with reduced life expectancy and poor quality of life for sufferers. According to Diabetes Australia, it is the sixth leading cause of death in Australia.
Lustig’s study looked at populations around the world and examined the relationship between increased sugar availability and increased prevalence of type 2 diabetes. The study found a causal link that Lustig suggests is at least as strong as the links found between smoking and lung cancer. Lustig concluded, “Population-level variations in diabetes prevalence that are unexplained by other common variables appear to be statistically explained by sugar.” While Lustig has not suggested that his study is definitive, he has called for more research to look further into the link.
Fatty liver disease
The evidence linking fructose consumption to fatty liver disease is compelling and Lustig believes that excess fructose consumption is as good, if not better, an indicator for fatty liver disease as excess alcohol consumption. Traditionally, fatty liver disease has been considered a disease of middle-aged alcoholics, but Lustig insists there is a growing epidemic of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease comparable to the obesity epidemic.
According to Lustig, because fructose can only be metabolised in the liver it causes fatty deposits to accumulate, leading to fatty liver, and over time this can lead to cirrhosis of the liver and even liver cancer. A large waistline, a known indicator of diabetes, is also a sign of fatty liver. Often referred to as a “beer gut” in men (“apple shape” in women), a disproportionately fat mid-section is usually a sign of extensive visceral fat and is associated with both diabetes and fatty liver disease. Don’t assume all men with a sizeable “verandah” are big beer drinkers — it could just be the sugar.
Another health problem linked to sugar consumption is candida overgrowth, or candidiasis. Candida occurs naturally in everyone’s digestive system. It is a part of the natural balance of gut flora that help break down foods we eat. Candida in itself is not a problem — it has an important function in the digestive process — but when it starts to grow out of control it can have serious consequences.
Excessive sugar consumption can cause candida to grow out of control as it feeds on sugar. The medical profession still has little understanding of exactly how candida affects health but there are several serious diseases thought by many to be linked to its overgrowth. Among them are autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, psoriasis and Chrohn’s disease.
Scientists at a Berlin university and the Institute for Research in Biomedicine in Switzerland have shown in studies that pathogenic candida can trigger the immune responses that cause the inflammation associated with these autoimmune diseases. These findings have been repeated in research conducted at the University of Tennessee, which showed that toxins released by yeast in the body cause systemic inflammation, among other things.
Quitting: a program anyone can follow
The hardest thing about quitting sugar is that it is in so many foods. I always thought I was pretty conscious of what I ate and, aside from the odd block of chocolate or piece of birthday cake, I didn’t think I ate much sugar. I’m not a fan of sweet biscuits, I rarely touch soft-drinks and we don’t do dessert in our house.
What I didn’t realise is there was sugar in my organic curry sauces, sugar in the soy sauce — even in the mustard I was buying. Flavoured yoghurt was out, almost all sauces were out and, to my horror, even the spices I was buying contained up to 40 per cent sugar. So many things I thought of as savoury and healthy were, in fact, loaded with sugar. Once I started to add it all up, I realised I was consuming up to 120g a day of hidden sugar.
Gillespie says in his book that he limits himself to 10g of sugar per meal. I decided to go a bit harder than that and now try to ensure I don’t consume any more than 10g of sugar a day. Anything that contains more than 3g per 100g is out entirely. It is worth being aware, though, that not all labels are created equal. Dairy, in particular, can be confusing, as milk will often be labelled as containing between 5g and 6g of sugar per 100mL. This is not fructose, however, but the lactose that occurs naturally in milk, and unless you are lactose-intolerant it is not considered a threat to health.
If you have made the decision to give sugar the boot, you will, at least initially, have to be prepared to take your time at the supermarket and read every label until you become familiar with the products that are fine and those that contain a lot of sugar.
As far as takeaway and eating out goes, it can be a bit harder to control how much sugar you consume. As a general rule, if it tastes sweet at all, it probably contains sugar. If you can avoid eating out for the first couple of weeks, until your tastebuds have adjusted, it will become easier to determine whether or not something contains sugar. Once your body is used to not having it, you will notice it even in very small quantities. You will also notice the natural sweetness in things like vegetables and milk. When I first gave up sugar, I thought coffee was going to be particularly difficult but, once I had adjusted, the sweetness of the milk in my latte was more than enough.
It’s also worth mentioning that, depending on your current consumption, you may feel pretty ordinary for the first 7–10 days after you quit. As with any addictive substance, when you quit cold turkey, your body will go through withdrawals. For me, this meant feeling a little nauseous, very tired and suffering bad headaches. The “withdrawals” peaked at around day two and started improving by day four. By day 10, I was over it completely and felt fantastic.
Sugar substitutes: the good, the bad and the ugly
For some, the idea of giving up sweets entirely seems unthinkable. If you have a particularly sweet tooth and enjoy your baked goods and ice-cream, it’s still possible to quit fructose and enjoy the benefits of a sugar-free diet. Almost anything that can be made with sugar can also be made using a sugar substitute. What this means, however, is that you will need to make your own.
Although packaged-food manufacturers are starting to catch on and produce some sugar-free options, to date, most are made with chemical sweeteners, which are unhealthy, anyway. You may be able to find the odd chocolate bar or ice-cream sweetened with a sugar alcohol, but it’s wise to be very wary when buying sugar-free from the store.
When it comes to cooking sugar free there are two options: you use pure glucose (sometimes known as dextrose) or a sugar substitute. Glucose is obviously still sugar but, without the fructose added, your body is able to metabolise the sugar properly and use the glucose for fuel.
Glucose powder and syrup are readily available from healthfood stores and some supermarkets. They are relatively inexpensive and can be used instead of regular table sugar. Gillespie has published a cookbook that uses glucose instead of sugar in recipes for a good array of baked goods, sweets and ice-creams. While glucose does not have the same effect on the body as fructose, it is still high in calories and has a high GI, so it’s recommended that you don’t over-consume it. Gillespie says that, because it doesn’t have the same addictive qualities as fructose, and because it doesn’t switch off the body’s inbuilt “stop eating” mechanisms, people don’t tend to over-consume in the way they do with fructose. He says sweets made with glucose are not as “moreish” as sweets made with sucrose and most people can quite happily have one piece of cake and be satisfied.
If you are looking for a sweetener that has little or no calories and is low GI, you are better off using a sugar substitute. There are really only three categories of sugar substitutes: chemical sweeteners, sugar alcohols and plant extracts.
Chemical sweeteners include things like aspartame, saccharin and sucralose. Cyclamate is a particularly controversial chemical sweetener and was banned for many years after studies found it was carcinogenic. That ban has since been lifted and cyclamate is now used in many countries, including Australia and the UK. Products like Splenda, Equal and Nutrasweet all contain chemical sweeteners. Chemical sweeteners are the most commonly used sugar substitutes in commercial products, particularly soft-drinks, gum and lollies.
Chemical sweeteners have been linked with multiple diseases, including cancer, and are known to be toxic to the liver. Aspartame is particularly toxic and can convert to formaldehyde, a known carcinogen, as your body breaks down the chemical.
Knowing the names of the most commonly used sweeteners will help you avoid them but often labels only show a number. If the list of ingredients includes sweeteners that have numbers, they will be chemical ones. In addition to the health risks associated with chemical sweeteners, some studies have actually shown they can also cause weight gain, so switching to a diet soft-drink is probably not going to help your weight-loss efforts.
Sugar alcohols are the second group of substitutes and include erythritol, xylitol, mannitol, maltitol and sorbitol. Sugar alcohols are neither sugars nor alcohol, but their molecular structure resembles a mix of both sugar and alcohol molecules, hence the term “sugar alcohol”. They have very low caloric values, have little or no impact on blood glucose levels and, as they are found naturally in fruits and vegetables, are not a bad option as a sugar substitute. Sugar alcohols don’t have the bitter aftertaste associated with chemical sweeteners and products like stevia, and some, such as xylitol, look and behave much like sucrose, so they are good for cooking as they can generally replace sugar in equal quantities.
Although there is not a large amount of research into the safety of sugar alcohols, the studies that have been done to date have not found any significant health risks associated with their consumption. They do, however, like other sweeteners, cause gastric problems such as bloating, gas and diarrhoea when consumed in large quantities, so care should be taken when using them.
Erythritol, xylitol and mannitol are probably the most commonly used in commercial sugar-free products. Erythritol and xylitol are safe in terms of their effect on blood glucose, while mannitol breaks down to fructose and should be avoided if you are trying to quit sugar. Xylitol, aside from being low calorie and low GI, also has some well-documented dental benefits, including preventing tooth decay. Xylitol is used in many sugar-free gums for that reason. Erythritol is not easy to get hold of but xylitol can be purchased from most healthfood shops and can replace sugar in recipes in the same quantities. My experience, however, has been that sugar alcohols do not freeze well so are not ideal for making sugar-free ice-cream.
Plant extracts, the third type of sugar substitute, include stevia, agave syrup and rice malt syrup. Stevia has no calories and no impact on blood glucose so is a safe sweetener for anyone wanting to avoid sugar. It does, however, have a somewhat bitter aftertaste similar to that of chemical sweeteners and some find it intolerable, though up to 20 per cent of people don’t detect the aftertaste. It’s really a matter of trying it to see if you like the taste. Stevia is about 300 times sweeter than sugar, so you need very little to sweeten foods.
Natvia, an alternative to pure stevia, is a mix of stevia and erythritol, which reduces the aftertaste of the stevia. Stevia RA is another form of stevia, sourced from a different part of the plant. It is 600 times sweeter than sugar and does not have the bitter aftertaste. It is, however, difficult to find and is quite expensive. If you do want to try Stevia RA, look for the one that is labelled 98 per cent and use very sparingly.
Agave syrup has become a popular sweetener among the health-conscious and is becoming an increasingly common ingredient in sugar-free sweets sold at healthfood stores. The problem with agave is it can contain up to 90 per cent fructose, depending on how it has been processed. At best, agave contains at least as much fructose as high-fructose corn syrup, so it really is not a great option if you are trying to avoid fructose.
Rice malt syrup is a thick, sweet syrup that has the consistency and look of honey. It is less sweet than honey but when you have an adjusted palate it still tastes quite sweet. As rice malt syrup contains glucose and maltose but no fructose, it is a good substitute for honey or maple syrup; honey is around 55 per cent fructose. Rice malt syrup can be used on Weet-bix or porridge and in baking. It is also good for sweetening drinks. Organic rice malt syrup is available in most supermarkets and is less expensive than honey. Of all the fructose-free sweeteners, organic rice malt syrup is possibly the healthiest, though it is still quite high in calories so should be used sparingly.
Quit sugar, change your life
Getting back to my own story, understanding the way sugar affects my body has been life-changing for me. While I do occasionally fall off the wagon and have a slice of mud cake, I don’t do it very often and I find that when I do I don’t really enjoy it any more. It still shocks me when I tell people I don’t eat sugar and they look at me perplexed and ask, “What do you eat?” It’s testament to how addicted to sugar we are.
Now that I don’t eat it, I don’t miss it. It’s like when someone gives up smoking once and for all, the smell and taste become repulsive. When I do feel like a sweet fix or I want to pack my kids a treat in their lunchbox, I whip up something using either rice malt syrup or xylitol.
The weight I lost has stayed off. It hasn’t been a big effort and I haven’t had to change my exercise habits. I now sleep better, get sick less often and am generally a happier person. Would I go back? Not a chance.
Quick guide to sensible sugar consumption
- If there is more than 3 per cent sugar in a processed food, don’t eat it.
- Remember that foods that may be otherwise healthy, such as honey, maple syrup and agave syrup, are also very high in fructose, so use sparingly or choose rice malt syrup.
- Don’t drink fruit juice. Eat whole fruit instead and drink water.
- Dried fruits are concentrated in fructose and, as they lack the bulk of the water, can be over-consumed. A small box of sultanas can equate to a kilo of grapes, a small handful of dried apricots like eating several apricots.
- Remember that “sugar-free” or “no added sugar” don’t necessarily mean fructose-free. Often products are sweetened with things like concentrated apple juice or dried fruit, both high in fructose.
- Low-fat foods often have sugar and/or starch added to improve flavour and consistency.
Life doesn’t have to be boring without sugar. These books can help with kids’ lunchboxes, birthday parties and dinner party desserts.
- The Sweet Poison Quit Plan Cookbook, by David Gillespie, Viking
- I Quit Sugar Cookbook, by Sarah Wilson, (e-book, sarahwilson.com.au)
- I Quit Sugar The Chocolate Cookbook, by Sarah Wilson, (e-book, sarahwilson.com.au)
4 delicious dessert recipes that are good for you
Sweet foods should only ever be a “treat”, something you have occasionally, but if you use natural sweeteners when you...
Do alcohol and sugar mix?
If you choose “diet” versions of mixers with your alcoholic drinks, you might be making yourself more drunk.
Sweet drinks build visceral fat
Sugary drinks increase fat around your internal organs.
Why sugar is the enemy of your skin
Tame your sweet tooth to experience great skin benefits and skin health.