Seems like it's possible one of those odd dynamics where, in efforts to replace one thing (aspartame, which is artificial, and has been linked to some problems), they "fast tracked" the usage of a replacement for it, and falsely assumed "natural = better", which obviously isn't always the case when it comes to food additives.
The thing that all non-caloric or low-calorie sweeteners seem to have in common (artificial or natural-derived), is that they appear to mess with the body's metabolism and insulin response.
The thing the human body is evolved to do (or designed to do if that's what people prefer) is to trigger a particular chemical and metabolic response to the foods we eat.
Under normal circumstances, when you consume something sweet, in nature, that means there's sugar in it, so your body would be "expecting something" (and produce the appropriate insulin response), over time, if you accustom your body to "I just drank something sweet, but no need to do anything, there's 0 calories and 0 sugar in it", when you do actually eat sugar, things aren't going to respond appropriately because you've been "tricking your body" in a sense.
Cleveland Clinic and Harvard have even done some write-ups on it
You kicked your regular soda habit, and now you’re sitting on cloud nine. But if that cloud is made of diet soda, you may have just created new problems. We talked to a dietitian about why diet soda is bad for your health, how to stop drinking it and alternatives to try instead.
health.clevelandclinic.org
They call what I was referring to "insulin confusion"
That's why I mentioned it all comes down to willpower in the end. There's no magical shortcut that's going to allow someone to eat cookies till they feel full, washed down with a soda of some sort, several times a week, and still maintain health.
With the hype around the new weight loss drugs like Ozempic, it's become pretty clear that people are looking for the "magic bullet" so to speak.
"At every meal, I want to satisfy my cravings for fullness, satiety, and decadence/richness...I don't want to have to sacrifice any of those 3 things, but I still want to be able to lose weight", that's where the market demand for these weight loss drugs and artificial replacement foods come from.
Same can be said for a lot of the 'fad diets' that pop up all over the place.
It's rather conspicuous that in all of the 'fad diets', none of them ever seem to incorporate "yeah, you have to eat broccoli once in a while instead of garlic bread". They're always these "you can eat all the ABC you want, just so long as you <insert trivial ineffective thing here>"
My mom's side of the family is all from the portion of the south that's known for not eating well. They're a "big bunch". They jump on all the bandwagons.
"I'm trying this new diet...you can eat all the <insert unhealthy food here> you want, just so long as you have one glass of cranberry juice with it, and don't have any carbs after 8pm, and take a teaspoon of oregano oil right before bed"
And burn through a bunch of those diet fads, and when they don't lose a pound, dismiss it as "It's just genetic,
I've tried everything and I can't lose weight" (while conveniently ignoring that I come from the same genetic line they do)
...when in reality, they haven't "tried everything", they've tried everything except eating less and eating things that may not taste super great, but are better for them lol.
They'll spend more time googling reasons not to eat the healthier foods. I have this conversation with my cousin down there at the yearly holiday gatherings. He's a big fella, lots of fast food, lots of pizza, lots of fried food. I tried telling him that if he kept it 1800 calories a day, cut down on the sweets, and ate things like a 5oz chicken breast and 2 cups of broccoli as a staple meal, he'd lose weight.
3 days later, I got an email from him with links to some stuff he found on google from carnivore diet "gurus" warning against "the anti-nutrients in green vegetables" and "why broccoli and kale aren't actually healthy" and why "red meat has more bioavailable nutrients than chicken" (ironic that he doesn't have a problem with chicken when it has the skin still on and fried in oil lol).
"Anti-nutrients" and "bioavailability" are nonsensical debate points from a person who's under 6 foot tall and tipping the scales at 325 and eating a bunch of garbage. They're just excuses for not having to make sacrifices.