71–80 of 137 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> erythritol (looks, feels and cooks almost exactly like sugar) The taste is quite different though.
Perhaps. This is subjective. But I could hardly tell the difference.
It's not like it's bad, though. It's just not what sucrose-eaters are accustomed to.
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…
> Clearly bad for your gut or you wouldn't be getting these side effects. That's not how that works. Ifyou eat too much fruit the sugar in that can cause a laxative effect,and the mecahnism is the same as with suga alcohols. The undigested sugar causes osmosis, which floods the gut with water, which causes diarrhea.
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 actually) for body weight, blood pressure, and insulin and lipid levels after three to six months.
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…
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 potassium has not been studied adequately and may be carcinogenic, although these claims have been dismissed by the European Food Safety Authority and FDA
Wikipedia link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acesulfame_potassium
Plus a report that lactobacillus concentration may actually be enhanced by artificial sweeteners:
In vitro analyses of Lactobacillus 4228 growth characteristics showed that presence of NHDC significantly reduces the lag phase of growth and enhances expression of specific sugar transporters, independently of NHDC metabolism. This study suggests that sensing of NHDC by a bacterial plasma membrane receptor underlies sweetener-induced growth of a health promoting gut bacterium.
Bacterial sensing underlies artificial sweetener-induced growth of gut Lactobacillus
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278045609_Bacterial...
Plus one of the last hold-outs to declassification of saccharin as carcinogenic was Health Canada which based the original prohibition on University of Nebraska studies but later concluded:
Such sodium salts, the council said, “produce tumours only when administered at high doses and only in rats,” thus “the mechanism by which the rats develop cancer is not present in humans.”
https://www.agcanada.com/daily/saccharin-cleared-for-use-in-...
Appears the jury is still out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If someone is sick, they'll become slow. All they'll want to do is lie down some place quiet. Watch kids, healthy kids. After a meal, all they want to do is run, talk, jump - move. Sitting still is the last thing they want to do. My point is perhaps, sedentary behavior is caused by something, a symptom outside the control of those afflicted by it. Here are some culprits we could explore: Schooling: Being trained, for…
Refined oils, fat, and animal protien cause arterial hardening immediately, lasting for several hours. Keep ingesting and you end up with heart disease....arteries filled with plaque restricting blood flow, raspiration, mental function. Ingesting refined sugar and flour causes an insulin spike (make fat out of carbs!) that lasts for hours causing a crash and repeated cravings for...more carbs. This leads to diabetes.…
The interesting thing with animal protein is that no study has shown a dose dependent increase in cancer when consuming more of it. Chronic inflammation from gluten, processed foods, pesticides, refined carbs, and refined sugars are the biggest culprits in dietary endorsed cancer.
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…
> Clearly bad for your gut or you wouldn't be getting these side effects. That's not how that works. Ifyou eat too much fruit the sugar in that can cause a laxative effect,and the mecahnism is the same as with suga alcohols. The undigested sugar causes osmosis, which floods the gut with water, which causes diarrhea.
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…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is dextrose in a sugar packet filler? That makes no sense to me. Maybe it's just a confusion of terms.
Maybe they meant cellulose?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like we're ignoring scale here. 16 packets of Splenda in a mouse's stomach.
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.