Slashdot Mirror
Sugar-Free Products Might Actually Stop Us From Getting Slimmer (dw.com)
Nutritionists suspected that artificial sweeteners weren't really helping people lose weight, according to a new article submitted by schwit1. Now there's hints of proof in a new aspartame study by the Massachusetts General Hospital.
"We found that aspartame blocks a gut enzyme called intestinal alkaline phosphatase," explains Professor Hodin. IAP is produced in the small intestine. "We previously showed [this enzyme] can prevent obesity, diabetes and metabolic syndrome [a disease characterized by a combination of obesity, high blood pressure, a metabolic disorder and insulin resistance]. So, we think that aspartame might not work because, even as it is substituting for sugar, it blocks the beneficial aspects of IAP...."
The researchers confirmed their suspicions via a variety of tests on mice. In one case, they fed IAP directly to mice, who were also on a high-fat diet. It turned out that the IAP could effectively prevent the emergence of the metabolic syndrome. It also helped relieve symptoms in animals that were already suffering from the obesity-related illness.
The researchers confirmed their suspicions via a variety of tests on mice. In one case, they fed IAP directly to mice, who were also on a high-fat diet. It turned out that the IAP could effectively prevent the emergence of the metabolic syndrome. It also helped relieve symptoms in animals that were already suffering from the obesity-related illness.
There have been studies on other sweeteners. Basically all of the sugar alcohols except erythritol interfere with your system in some way when used as a sugar substitute... And maybe that one too, and they just haven't figured it out yet. Stevia, on the other hand, so far appears as if it may even be beneficial. If you don't mind that it tastes like a leaf.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Try to eat as much unprocessed whole foods...period.
If you stick with a diet of foods (and yes, you need to learn the relatively EASY task of cooking your own food from scratch) composed in the majority of fresh vegetables, fruits and healthy protiens....you'll do much better.
Your body is trained and knows how to process these and keep you healthy. If you're eating mostly vegetables, you'll be full and not overeat calorically....so, put those meats and stuff fin there too, but don't make them always the main dish...fill up on the foods that give you the most nutrients per calorie.
It really isn't hard, you just have to decide how valuable your time is with regard to your health.
And...get your kids involved with you cooking, this does two things..it teaches them about real foods AND hey you might start actually eating meals again as a family, something that seems to have faded somewhat into the past with many people.
You know, that extra soccer game or dance lesson be damned, cook and eat and spend time as a family, that time spent will pay you back many times over.
But really...it isn't that hard. Cook whole foods, eat a variety...avoid as much as possibly processed foods. When in the grocery store, for the most part...shop the outside of it, the perimeter and avoid all the processed crap in the center.
If you do that...."diets" and all will take care of themselves, you'll have gut health, systemic health, and who knows...it might even help grown your family togetherness health a bit too.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I know this was tongue-in-cheek, but how long did hunter-gatherers live on average?
If they made it past infant, the best estimates are about the same as 15-16th century men. Generally hunter-gatherers that made it past infancy died from external means (accidents, infections, etc). Of course making it past infancy was pretty hard for typical hunter gathers. It is a myth that they somehow prehistoric people all died around 30 because that was their "life-expectanacy" at birth. The huge increase in infant mortality greatly skew their life-expectancy down greatly.
Studies in the 50's and 60's of isolated hunter-gather societies in Africa and south america provide our best estimates for lifespans of hunter-gatherer societies post infant mortality. The studies of these relatively contemporary isolated hunter-gatherer societies tracked with human life spans in the 15-16th century when actual records were more available. One of the big assumption they make in many studies is that childhood and other infectious diseases were much more common in the 15-16th century as population densities increased vs isolated hunter gatherer societies so you can perhaps take all this with a grain of salt...
As an additionally data point, many recovered fossils of prehistoric men (and neanderthals for that matter) have shown advanced arthritis and dental wear consistent with ages around 60yo so their is at least existant proof of older people of that era. Although there aren't enough fossil records to be sure of actual age statistics solely from fossil records.
When the industrial revolution rolled around and our lives became less physically dangerous and learned more about diseases, infant/child mortality greatly decreases and our life expectancy has raised considerably and now people that made it past childhood were dying of typical cardio-vascular diseases (probably from higher calorie diets that didn't exist during our species hunter-gather phase).
If you really want to live to your natural age limit of relatively cardio-vascular disease free life, various studies from the 1930's to present day have shown highly calorie restricted diets have shown to possibly be one way to go. It must be balanced, and sadly caloric levels are at the level of near starvation like some hunter-gathers that hit a few lean years. Unfortunately, the statistics have shown the next thing in line to get you is probably cancer, so it doesn't really make you live much longer just w/o cardio-vascular disease, so it may not be worth for many folks to basically starving yourself to get this benefit... yet...
But I have consistently been able to identify (without prior knowledge) sucralose, an artificial sweetener, in my food.
I can do that because I get sick immediately after.
I get a horrible after-taste coming up from my stomach, and one time I ate a whole can of peaches before realizing it (canned PEACHES have artificial sweetener now?!), I ended up dizzy and I could feel heart was beating out of my chest and a pain all around it.
I've thought about doing a live double blind study, on video, and posting it to Youtube to prove I'm not full of crap. But it's also strange that I'd have to go to such extravagant lengths to "prove" I'm not lying. Are we supposed to assume every chemical produced by a "food" company is good for us now? When did Big Pharma become the good guys?