Are you looking to lose weight or maintain your figure? On the supermarket shelves, the words “light”, “reduced”, “0%” or “no added sugars” are waiting for you. They suggest a more balanced choice, especially for people concerned about their health. But what is it in reality? In its latest issue, 60 million consumers once again point out the perverse effects behind this mention.
Less fat or sugar, more additives
In theory, a product light must contain at least 30% fewer calories than its classic version. In certain specific cases, such as a compote without added sugar, the approach may seem relevant: without sugar to mask defects, the manufacturer is forced to use better quality fruit. But these exceptions are rare. In the majority of recipes, lightening means above all… compensating in other ways.
Thus, fat in general plays an essential role in the taste and texture of foods. When it is reduced or eliminated, manufacturers must be cunning to maintain an attractive flavor. Result: we add flavor enhancers such as salt, sugar or monosodium glutamate. And the list of ingredients is growing.
Same logic for sugar. In order to offer “no added sugar” products, we replace it with intense sweeteners: aspartame, acesulfame K, steviol glycosides or sucralose. Very sweet substances, but whose effects on health are increasingly questioning scientists.
Sweeteners: a false substitute for sugar
According to the NutriNet cohort study conducted by Inserm, sweeteners are not a safe alternative to sugar. Other work, notably from INRAE in animals, shows that they do not promote weight loss or stabilization.
Worse: regular consumption of light drinks or products is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and diabetes. Aspartame, widely used in low-fat products, has even been classified as a “possible carcinogen for humans” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, an agency of the World Health Organization.
The Cognitive Bias Trap
That’s not all. One of the major dangers of light
is not only nutritional, it is also psychological. As explained by Dr Julien Rousseaux, nutritionist doctor cited by
60 Million consumersthese products induce a cognitive bias: “Since it’s lightened, I have the right.”
Relieved of guilt, the consumer does not change his eating habits… or even eats more. Portions increase, the feeling of control is illusory, and overall calorie intake can ultimately climb. Sweeteners also maintain the appetite for the sweet taste, without helping to break away from it.
Last March, a study on sucralose suggested that this widely used sugar substitute, found in low-calorie soft drinks or ketchup, might trick your brain into eating more. Ingesting sucralose aroused a feeling of hunger in consumers and the desire to eat, instead of satisfying it. To eat lighter, we will go back…
More expensive, for little benefit
Another paradox: low-fat products are often sold more expensive than their traditional equivalents. An additional cost that is difficult to justify, especially since they provide neither lasting benefit on weight nor real improvement in nutritional balance.
As experts point out, no diet based on restriction or “miracle” products works in the long term. The key remains simple: a varied diet, minimally processed foods and portions adapted to your needs.
Better to stay… very light on the light
Low-fat products can reassure, seduce and give the impression of making an effort for your health. But in reality, they often distract from the essential: learning to eat better, and not to eat “differently”.
The advice of 60 Million consumers is clear: consume the products light sparingly, without expecting miracles. And above all, remember that the best ally of health is not marketing claims, but common food sense.
And to find out more about this survey, go to the latest issue of 60 million consumers for a detailed report.