 A number of artificial sweeteners have been FDA-approved in North America, including aspartame and sucralose, sold as splenda. But there are also natural high-intensity sweeteners found in plants. The global market for non-nutrient sweeteners in general, these non-caloric sweeteners, is in the billions, including all the artificial ones, and two natural ones extracted from plants, stevia and monk fruit. I've done a video about stevia. What about monk fruit? Roots of Luohanguo monk fruit in Chinese have heavily been used for hundreds of years as a natural sweetener in folk medicine. The non-caloric sweet taste comes from magricides, a group of cucurbitane-type churipine glycosides, make about 1% of the fruit, and are like hundreds of times sweeter than sugar. The mixed magricides have been estimated to be about 300 times as sweet as table sugar, such that an 80% extract was nearly 250 times sweeter than sugar. If you read reviews in Chinese natural medicine journals, you'll see pronouncements like this. Monk fruit has been shown to have anti-coffing effects, anti-asma, anti-oxidation, liver protection, blood sugar lowering, immunoregulation, and anti-cancer. But what they don't tell you upfront is that they're talking about reducing ammonia-induced mouse coughs. A natural food sweetener with anti-pancreatic cancer properties? Monk fruit may be used for daily consumption as an additive in foods and drinks to prevent or treat pancreatic cancer. Yeah, maybe in your pet mouse. And the anti-proliferative activity of monk fruit in colorectal cancer and throat cancer was on colorectal and throat cancer cells in a petri dish. Now they did show magricides killing off colorectal cancer cells and throat cancer cells. And look, our digestive tract could be directly exposed to these compounds if we ate them. But what's missing? Right, they didn't test it against normal cells. I mean, you could pee in a petri dish and kill off cancer cells. I mean, the whole point is to find something that kills off cancer but leaves normal cells alone, something that they weren't able to show here. Are there any human studies on monk fruit? No. Until now, owing to the rapidly growing popularity of natural plant-based sweeteners, they thought it would be of interest to determine whether natural sweeteners would be a healthier alternative to sugar or artificial sweeteners. So they randomized people to drink an aspartame sweetened beverage versus monk fruit sweetened versus stevia versus table sugar. And then they measured blood sugars over 24 hours. And there was no significant difference found between any of them. But wait a second. The sugar group was given 16 spoonfuls of sugar, the amount of added sugar on a 20-ounce bottle of Coke. So the other three groups consumed 16 less spoonfuls of sugar and still had the same average blood sugars. But table sugar caused a big blood sugar spike. Here it is. I'll show you. Drink that bottle of sugar water with its 20 sugar cubes worth of sugar and your blood sugars jump 40 points of the next hour, whereas you give an aspartame sweetened beverage or a monk fruit or stevia, and nothing happens, which is what you'd expect, right? I mean, these are non-caloric sweeteners. No calories. It's just like you're drinking water, right? So how could your daily blood sugar values average out the same? I mean, the only way that could happen is if the non-calorie sweeteners maybe made your blood sugar spikes worse somehow later in the day. Look what happens when you give people Splenda mixed with sugar water. You get a greater blood sugar spike, a greater insulin spike, chugging the sugar with sucralose than without, even though Splenda alone causes no spike of its own. So does aspartame do the same thing? At the one-hour mark, they fed people a regular lunch, and so the blood sugars went back up and down as they normally would after a meal, not spiking as high as drinking straight sugar water, just a gentle up and down, okay? But that was in the group that drank the sugar an hour before. In the group that drank the aspartame, even though their blood sugars didn't rise at the time, an hour later at lunch, they shot up higher as if the person had just drank a bottle of soda. Okay, but what about the natural sweetener, stevia and monk fruit? Same thing, same exaggerated blood sugar spike to a regular meal taken an hour later. So you can see how it all equals out in terms of average blood sugars, even though in these three non-caloric sweetener groups, they took in 16 spoonfuls less sugar, at least in part because they ate more. After drinking a diet coke, you're more likely to eat more at your next meal than drinking a regular coke. In fact, so much more that the energy saved from replacing sugar with non-caloric sweeteners was fully compensated for at a subsequent meal. Hence, no difference in total daily calorie intake was found. The sugar sweetened beverage led to large spikes in both blood sugar and insulin, whereas these responses were higher for the three other beverages following the lunch later. So when it came to calorie intake or blood sugars or insulin spikes, they were all just as bad.