These days, it’s hard not to find some alternative to the full-fat, full-sugar product of your favorite soda, dessert, snack or cereal. After all, with weight being an issue for the majority Americans, many believe that the reduced calorie versions of their favorite puddings and ice cream sandwiches should equal a drop in weight. But according to research conducted by researchers from Purdue University (Go Boilermakers!), reduced calorie versions of snack fare actually contributes to weight gain!

When you think about it, this finding isn’t too surprising. I’ve never seen grocery aisles more stocked with so-called “diet” options in all my life, yet the obesity rate continues to rise. In the past year, in fact, 37 states saw an increase in obesity rates – the state with the “weightiest rate” being Mississippi (32 percent of Mississippians are considered “obese”). The remaining 13 states stayed the same compared to last year. That means not a single state saw a decrease in obesity rates (Colorado had the lowest obesity rate, 18.4 percent)!

The weight gain problem in America is not due to a lack of knowledge or understanding as to what constitutes a good food choice, nor is the problem a lack of quality food options. Rationing food portions and including lots of fruits and vegetables in one’s diet is a suggestion so commonplace that to deny knowing such a thing would make any rational person question the denier’s sanity. The problem is nobody’s told the body – the body itself – how it must react when consuming these “diet” foods. The Purdue study helps explain what I mean.

After supplementing two groups of rats with different sweeteners – one with regular sugar, the other with the artificial sweetener saccharin – the researchers found that the group of rats that consumed the saccharin-sweetened food put on more pounds than the sugar-supplemented group. Why? The researchers say the artificial sweetener had a way of altering the rats’ brain chemistry, as the saccharin-consuming rats associated saccharin’s minimal caloric content (compared to sugar) with a sweet taste and the rats ate more food as a result. Details of the study have been published in Behavioral Neuroscience.

This isn’t unlike what many people do when they consume products perceived to have fewer calories. The mind thinks, “Oh, since this pudding cup has fewer calories than the regular, I can afford to eat a bit more.” The body thinks the same thing. Continuing with our pudding example, the body notes the difference in calorie content, thus isn’t as sated as it would be with a pudding that had the regular amount of sugar and calories. As a result, it signals to the body that it’s still hungry, the mind abides by that request by feeding it more – thinking the calorie content of the “sugar-free” product is still less than the original – essentially removing any perceived benefit of eating a reduced-calorie snack over the regular kind. In short, you would have been better off eating the “full-fat” pudding than the “sugar-free” one.

This is just the latest of the many health issues related to artificial sweeteners. I’m no proponent of sugary sodas, chocolate-swirl puddings or crème-filled cookies, but if you’re going to indulge, you’re better off having the real thing than the artificial stuff, as the real thing provides more satiety and less actual eating.

Sugar-free products have certainly worked for some, but as the rising obesity rate indicates, it’s not working for all. If people start looking at the portion sizes of what they’re eating, obesity rates will start to decline. They’ll decline even further when these same people start consuming the organic foods that I advocate so strongly. But at this point, it’s one step at a time.