111–120 of 137 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps. This is subjective. But I could hardly tell the difference.
The taste difference will never let it pass as candy on its own. It has to be used in foods where other flavors can dominate it, and only let the sweetness through. It's not like it's bad, though. It's just not what sucrose-eaters are accustomed to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Paranoid mistrust, cancer fears, and fart-driven explosive diarrhea had already winnowed my list of non-sucrose sweeteners down to just erythritol, pure stevia powder, and very small amounts of xylitol. I'll have to look into lactulose and palatinose.... And it looks like lactulose is out for the diarrhea reason, and isomaltulose--Palatinose is a trademarked name for it--looks practically identical to slow-motion suc…
I've found that stevia sweeteners with inulin (not insulin) seen to be beneficial for my gut bacteria. Actually seems to help with "loose days". Sweetleaf is generally what I use.
The reason toxicity is expressed as an LD50 is to account for the dose-response of toxins. If toxins behaved as purported in this experiment, we could use a simple concentration number instead: no effect, no effect, no effect, dead.
Also, it looks like all the substances that showed toxic induction did so around the same concentration. Very suspicious for chemically disparate substances with, presumably, different mechanisms of action.
“How can we all have died at the same time? ...(thinks)...The salmon mousse!”
The article doesn't say which sweeteners did they study and this is a very bad style. Fortunately it links to an article on EurekAlert which in its turn links to the actual scientific paper (doi.org/10.3390/molecules23102454). It says aspartame, sucralose, saccharine, neotame, advantame and acesulfame potassium-k (ace-k) (BTW at least saccharine and ace-k are already known to be carcinogenic AFAIK) were tested agains…
BTW at least saccharine and ace-k are already known to be carcinogenic AFAIK It would appear that the US FDA and European FSA disagree with you on that subject. Concerning saccharin: In a December 14, 2010 release, the EPA stated that saccharin is no longer considered a potential hazard to human health Wikipedia link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccharin Concerning Acesulfame potassium Critics say acesulfame potas…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There have been studies done where patients were given lots of fruit and it did not cause a laxative effect. https://nutritionfacts.org/2017/02/23/can-you-eat-too-much-f... > Seventeen people were made to eat 20 servings a day of fruit. Despite the extraordinarily high fructose content of this diet, presumably about 200 g/d—eight cans of soda worth, the investigators reported no adverse effects (and possible benefit…
That article says nothing about a laxative effect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You might be right, I was inferring that the 16 packets was for human levels, but after reading it over again I am not sure that is the case.
A mouse is like 20g. No way are they shoving 16g's of splenda into one.
Seems like everything has artificial sweeteners nowadays. It's a trend that I noticed only in the last couple of years. And not just fizzy drinks like Sprite or Pepsi - which have sugar and sweetener! - but breakfast cereals, yoghurts, ketchup-like sauces... all have "no added sugar" on the package, you dig a bit deeper and they are full of sweeteners. Chewing gum and other "healthy sweet" products like that have use…
> breakfast cereals, yoghurts, ketchup-like sauces If you're trying to avoid both sugar and sweeteners, those aren't the kinds of foods you're going to be eating... Unless you're referring to plain oats and plain yoghurt, which surely must be available unsweetened and unadulterated.
If the science on this issue becomes conclusively affirmative, then it's sort of the nail in the coffin for artificial sweeteners, because it doesn't matter what the compositional makeup of the sweetener is, it's our own bodies own responses to the taste/smell that are giving us the ill effects.
I would definitely like to be dissuaded as to believing this is not the case, though, as it's caused my to ignore my sweet tooth for far too long! :)
For those who are interested in and/or consume artificial sweeteners, I think this link is definitely worth a read:
Earlier quoted context omitted.
BTW at least saccharine and ace-k are already known to be carcinogenic AFAIK It would appear that the US FDA and European FSA disagree with you on that subject. Concerning saccharin: In a December 14, 2010 release, the EPA stated that saccharin is no longer considered a potential hazard to human health Wikipedia link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccharin Concerning Acesulfame potassium Critics say acesulfame potas…
Thank you for a lot of interesting information. "Bacterial sensing underlies artificial sweetener-induced growth of gut Lactobacillus" seemed the most interesting to me, funny thing is it's about SUCRAM - a sweetener I've never heard about before now. Where can I possibly buy some? What kind of a chemical substance it even is? Does it have a more scientific name?
URL: http://alliednutrition.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/AN-Suc...