Fact check: Genereally, things that we don't metabolize are not good for the human body.

1. Summary of the results

The original statement oversimplifies a complex biological relationship. Research shows that non-metabolized substances can have varying effects on human health, and their impact cannot be categorically classified as "good" or "bad" ^[1].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

• The statement overlooks the complex interaction between non-metabolized substances and the human body, particularly:

The role of artificial sweeteners as a key example of non-metabolized substances that aren't directly toxic ^[1]

The indirect effects through gut microbiome disruption, which can influence glucose metabolism ^[1]

• The biological pathway is more nuanced than simple metabolism vs. non-metabolism:

Some substances can affect our health through indirect mechanisms without being metabolized

The impact on gut microbes demonstrates that non-metabolized substances can still be biologically active ^[1]

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

• The statement presents a false dichotomy by suggesting that metabolism alone determines whether a substance is beneficial or harmful
• This oversimplification could benefit several groups:

**Natural food industry** advocates who promote "completely digestible" products

Traditional sugar industry stakeholders who might use this argument against artificial sweeteners

• The statement ignores scientific evidence showing that the relationship between metabolism and health effects is more complex and multifaceted ^[1]