Slashdot Mirror
Artificial Sweeteners Associated With Weight Gain, Heart Problems In Analysis of Data From 37 Studies (npr.org)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from NPR: The theory behind artificial sweeteners is simple: If you use them instead of sugar, you get the joy of sweet-tasting beverages and foods without the downer of extra calories, potential weight gain and related health issues. In practice, it's not so simple, as a review of the scientific evidence on non-nutritive sweeteners published Monday shows. After looking at two types of scientific research, the authors conclude that there is no solid evidence that sweeteners like aspartame and sucralose help people manage their weight. And observational data suggest that the people who regularly consume these sweeteners are also more likely to develop future health problems, though those studies can't say those problems are caused by the sweeteners.
The review, published Monday in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, looked at 37 studies. Seven of them were randomized trials, covering about 1,000 people, and the rest were observational studies that tracked the health and habits of almost 406,000 people over time.
The review, published Monday in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, looked at 37 studies. Seven of them were randomized trials, covering about 1,000 people, and the rest were observational studies that tracked the health and habits of almost 406,000 people over time.
eat four times as much.
I delivered pizza in college. 2 large Everything pizza's and 4 litres of Diet Coke. Who orders that? Yep, every time. Like the Diet Coke is going to offset 4 slices of Everything pizza.
I see it our community pool every summer. Some of these kids I don't see for 8 months. They come down each summer a little larger. Kids drink Diet Coke and then eat 4 hotdogs or 2 burgers. I see it every weekend. People eat multiple burgers/hotdogs, chips and fatty dip, strawberries with pound cake and whip cream, all while sipping their slimming Diet Coke.
I've struggled a bit with weight for years and recently started a new diet which includes not drinking zero calorie fizzy drinks. Instead I keep chilled filtered water in the fridge and drink that. I've also calorie controlled my diet like I have previously but this time the weight is falling off. The only real difference is the lack of these zero calorie fizzy drinks. Anecdotal yes, but seriously worth considering.
"I have the attention span of a strobe lit goldfish, please get to the point quickly!"
Many Nu-Sweeter have been shown to cause autism. Dont eat this.
Get rid of any Asian toys/products. Children should receive regular, healthy, not-infrequent beatings to prevent autism deposits from forming. Replace all their sugars with salts. Any salts will do, but radioactive salts work best.
Can anyone say confounding by indication? In the same way that people who get a lot of EKGs are at much higher risk of having a heart attack, people who consume artificial sweetners are at increased risk of obesity.
No one would suggest that getting an EKG increases your risk of heart attacks but people who get a lot of them are certainly at a much, MUCH higher risk of heart attacks. That is because if you have risk factors and complain of chest pain and shortness of breath to a doctor, she will send you for an EKG. In the same way, people self select to consume artificial sweetners if they are fat.
My understanding is that eating something sweet causes an insulin rush (actually, merely the taste of sweetness on the tongue triggers this, you don't even have to swallow it.) If the insulin arrives, and finds no real sugars in the bloodstream, this is like crying wolf. Eventually the insulin stops responding to the sweetness trigger, which is 'insulin resistance.' This causes real sugar to linger in the bloodstream longer before it's processed, although I forgot how that leads to obesity; probably a secondary metabolic pathway converts the 'leftovers' to fat.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
This is even trickier than it looks. The artificial sweeteners are so realistic that they fool the body into thinking that you just drank tons of sugar, so insuline level is adjusted, but since there's no actual sugar it makes you crave sweets.
So yes you probably should use actual sugar, if possible natural sugar (brown) not white processed poison, but if you can progressively dial it down to a point where you don't put sugar at all your body will thank you.
Let's be clear: the body has no need for sugar, it has no nutritional value whatsoever.
lucm, indeed.
"brown sugar" isn't natural sugar. It is refined sugar with molasses added back in. The molasses is what they removed in previous steps, slightly burnt.
Natural sugar, which you can buy in most stores now, will be labeled "raw sugar" or "washed sugar" and it will be large crystals of a honey blond color.
The advantage of brown sugar is only that the flavor is so strong, you can modify recipes to use less. At a 1:1 ratio with no reduction, the brown sugar is more processed and more unhealthy than regular refined sugar.
So, skinny people are the #1 Market for low cal sweeteners?
I doubt that.
Sugar has paid millions to hurt, harm, etc artificial sweeteners.
It's BULLSHIT until you prove they weren't involved.
This is yet another bullshit study, with an obvious result.
oil, lead, sugar, etc. industries that have paid billions to debunk their harm.
I assume false, based on experience.
There's many ways that it could have that effect. The part of the puzzle you're missing is poop. Calories in exercise + calories added to fat stores + calories in poop = calories taken in.
The number of calories left in the poop can be dramatically different depending on how the digestive tract is working. Different bacterial flora in the intestines can lead to dramatically different absorption rates of calories from some foods.
Certain foods (I don't know if artificial sweeteners are one, but it wouldn't surprise me) dramatically affect the bacterial flora.
I am plenty overweight, I did drink a lot of diet coke but I gave it up a few months ago when there were reports that the sweeteners are causing dementia. My weight has increased since I gave up (and no, I have not started drinking full fat coke). My problem is the usual too many calories in / too few expended. Anecdotally of course I can't say that the diet coke was my downfall so far as weight is concerned.
Nullius in verba
The key phrase in the above summary is:
"those studies can't say those problems are caused by the sweeteners"
meaning the studies are pretty useless, and the /. headline:
"Artificial Sweeteners Associated With Weight Gain, Heart Problems In Analysis of Data From 37 Studies"
is completely misleading.
Undoubtedly as many other posters have suggested the problem is behavioral, which will surprise no one and doesn't require 37 studies to demonstrate.
But if science is science, then calories in is equal to work done with excess calories becoming weight gained.
This is a simplistic and flawed conclusion. The body is not a closed system that lives in a vacuum with only calories as input/output, it's a lot more complex than that.
Also, calories are not equal. For instance, given a same amount of calories, dietary fat is absorbed a lot more easily by the body than proteins. This doesn't simply mean a difference in energy expenditure, it also means that time is involved.
Here's another example. If you stop eating carbs but you compensate by eating more proteins but not more fatty acids (like omega-3), your body won't go into ketosis, and because your brain can't find neither glucose or ketones to feed itself, it's going to start eating your muscles, not your excess fat. With less muscle your metabolism will progressively slow down. And this can happen no matter how many calories you eat or how many reps you do at the gym.
lucm, indeed.
It could be a lifestyle problem. I know that in my case I started with sugar cola, then switched to diet because I was getting too much sugar, so much I was starting to show off early signs of diabetes mellitus. Then now I am trying to switch off to water (more difficult than you think - I have now bouts of water consumption and bouts of soda without sugar - bad habits are hard to shake. On the other hand my weight is dropping).
For many people the alternative is not healthy lifestyle with diet soda and healthy lifestyle without, the alternative is unhealthy lifestyle with lotta sugar and sugary drink OR unhealthy lifestyle with diet cola , that is slightly less sugar. As such , yes people consuming artificial sweetener soda seem to are more likely to get lifestyle related disease... But the alternative may actually be they get those disease earlier if they consumed sugary drink instead.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
"Endorphins? You mean like Flipper?" - Suzanne "Sugar"baker on Designing Women
Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
I should start putting actual sugar in my coffee again
No. You should give up sugar to the extent possible and just not expect
artificial sweeteners to help much with that goal, and don't expect them
to be entirely harmless.
(I'd not worry about the added sugar in stuff like ketchup, unless you find
yourself eating large quantities of it, but do keep an eye on food labels
and eliminate anything that has way more sugar than you'd expect.)
An occasional life saver, sucked not chewed, should be able to take the
edge off at first when you hit a severe jag... note that one 12oz can of
sugared coke is 3 of those, despite not even being very sweet compared
to the sucralose diet coke, and not much sweeter than the aspartame
diet coke.
I've quit daily sugar intake twice now; it is not easy for some people to do.
I had been off sugar for about a decade, started indulging again, and
gained 10lbs in a year. Am now still considered overweight by 5lbs despite
being mostly back off the sugar, but weight has more or less stabilized.
Cholesterol went down after getting back off, as well.
During that whole decade before the weight gain I was drinking more sucralose
and aspartame than anyone would think healthy. Still am. There is no "artificial"
taste for me anymore... sugar actually tastes weak and underwhelming. The
artificial sweeteners probably do screw up the gut a bit... but sugar is worse overall.
Drink something that tastes better than coffee. or better coffee; you won't need
to sweeten it so much.
Someone had to do it.
The other have should be the connection to caffeine. As already stated below, sugary tastes make you hungrier. While the caffeine turns off the chemicals associated with hunger. This is why it's so prevalent in diet pills. But what happens when you put both together? You get a concoction which puts your body into a constant chemical imbalance. Has their been a long term study stating what happens when this happens? Or has Coke/Pepsi already buried the report?
Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
"brown sugar" isn't natural sugar. It is refined sugar with molasses added back in.
Not necessarily. See Wikipedia:
Brown sugar is a sucrose sugar product with a distinctive brown color due to the presence of molasses. It is either an unrefined or partially refined soft sugar consisting of sugar crystals with some residual molasses content (natural brown sugar), or it is produced by the addition of molasses to refined white sugar (commercial brown sugar).
lucm, indeed.
Correction, 1 12 oz coke is 8ish lifesavers. Not 3, Don't know why I typed 3.
Someone had to do it.
This is even trickier than it looks. The artificial sweeteners are so realistic that they fool the body into thinking that you just drank tons of sugar, so insuline level is adjusted, but since there's no actual sugar it makes you crave sweets.
I've been hearing about this for a while. What I do is I always drink sugar-free sweetened beverages together with food (or at least a snack), never by itself.
That's even worse because when aspartame get metabolized by the liver, it creates byproducts that interfere with dietary fat absorption and overall gut health. So whatever you're eating while you drink diet soft drinks is not going to have a smooth ride in your system.
lucm, indeed.
Or better, skip sugar.
Milk, no sugar for me.
The problem is that we have too much of easily available carbohydrates in our food today causing the blood sugar levels to do bungyjumping all over the place resulting in us being tired, hungry and develop diabetes.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Full fake coke would be better. Fat makes you feel more full, takes longer to digest, and takes more energy to digest. Fat doesn't make you fat. Stop avoiding fat.
And any fat you exercise away goes out in sweat or urine.
The poop is just the part of what you digested that couldn't be absorbed.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Some people actually like Diet Coke. I can't stand the regular non-diet Coke - it's way too sweet for me with a nasty aftertaste. And Diet Coke is just fine.
Some guy's anecdotal evidence more convincing than peer reviewed research.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
that is actually false. Insulin is a blood sugar chemical reaction not a reaction to what "might" be coming, it is not influenced by what you taste or think.
Aspatame influences the sugar and fat transfer from the digesting track to the blood and has an influence on insulin levels (insulin is already set free when you taste the right sweetness in your mouth) and hence amplifies transfer of fat and sugar into the fat cells.
I know that since over 25 years, so I guess the science is 30 years old or older ...
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
FYI: The Designing Women sisters' surname is Sugarbaker. No idea why you stuck quotes in there.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Sugar is not that big of a problem. The main problem is if your consumed processed food where it is already added, so you are getting too much of it. A bit of sugar in your coffee is a lot healthier and more slimming than not drinking coffee or drinking lattes. Both sugar and coffee are hunger supressing, and will make you eat less (unlike artificial sweeteners that makes you more hungry and eat more).
I was emphasizing how her name was apt for the subject at hand.
Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
You have no idea what you are even talking about.
Carbohydrates and calories have no nutritional value whatsoever?
The review, published Monday in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, looked at 37 studies. Seven of them were randomized trials, covering about 1,000 people, and the rest were observational studies that tracked the health and habits of almost 406,000 people over time.
Emphasis mine, on the part you left out.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
"I'll have a large pizza and a diet coke please. I've got to think of my weight"
I should start putting actual sugar in my coffee again?
Nope - learn to enjoy black coffee. Or water. Believe me, there is no limit to what a person can actually learn to enjoy the taste of; black coffee is a very minor challenge.
Protip: Anything that gives you diarrhea when consumed in high amount is not particularly healthy.
This is just a triviality of the manufacturing process. That's like saying milk isn't milk because they separate out the cream and then add it back in, or orange juice isn't orange juice - it's just a way of ensuring a consistent product.
Yes the brown sugar is more processed than refined sugar, but why are you saying that it's more unhealthy? Just the added molasses? I suppose that would marginally increase the calories if measured by volume, but wouldn't that also marginally decrease the calories if measured by weight?
You have an interesting point.
When I eat spicier foods, they race thru my system and I have lost weight during those periods so I assume the food is less efficiently digested.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
This is why Trump won.
...but I'd sure as hell like to have an easy-access, nicely detailed list of funding parties for this research, along with the head researchers background, with their past work clear and conclusions accessible.
I like my research unbiased and authorship transparent. That also applies to headlines around the subject - I see none of that in this post.
Or did everyone already forget, now that it's silly season, that big sugar is a large research patron?
Artificial sweeteners are the equivalent of having sex with a condom on.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
In a rare burst of insight, he tweeted a couple years ago that Diet Coke doesn't seem to help him control his weight because it only made him hungrier.
He was referring to he type of coke you snort
He was referring to he type of coke you snort
Those piggy nostrils are probably not well suited for that particular habit. Of course, it can be administered the other way too, if your reach is long enough...
Article, summary, and even the abstract of the study are all completely useless garbage because none of them tell us which sweeteners they actually studied.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
And any fat you exercise away goes out in sweat or urine.
Much of it goes out your breath, actually. Both water and carbon dioxide are byproducts of the oxidations.
So yes you probably should use actual sugar, if possible natural sugar (brown) not white processed poison,
Oh, dear. Where to begin....?
(facepalm)
No sig today...
when aspartame get metabolized by the liver, it creates byproducts that interfere with dietary fat absorption
So it does make you slimmer? That's great news!
No sig today...
[T]he sweeteners appear to change the population of intestinal bacteria that direct metabolism, the conversion of food to energy or stored fuel. And this result suggests the connection might also exist in humans.
https://www.scientificamerican...
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
They are more than 2.5g each. At least the size I find on shelves. Per my above correction that was an error. Actually more like 10ish I guess.
Point being, think how long it takes to slowly let a lifesaver dissolve in your mouth and how sweet it is. Compare that to how sweet a Coke is not, and how fast it gets drunk. Taste is all about surface area * time... in a beverage of any type, most of it gets washed quickly down your throat, never contacting your taste buds.
Using an optimized sugar-to-tastebud delivery system would actually be a way to experimentally separate the hypothesis that "fooling your body" into thinking you are eating more than you are is harmful, versus other effects of artificial sweeteners.
Someone had to do it.
I'm a drinker of diet sodas, but what really bothers me is that people really over-emphasize the "diet" in the name. I wish they'd change the name so people would stop focusing on the "diet" part of the name. I don't drink these things because it's a "diet" drink or because it has no calories. I drink them because I can't stand the taste of sugary drinks. Yet, I've suffered some of the stupidest comments from people who seem to be self-proclaimed "experts" on diet drinks, only to be disproved by actually speaking out loud. And people really, really want to give their opinions about the subject when none was ever asked for. I've had some people think I'm in good shape because of diet sodas, and I've had others warn me that I might suffer and end up in bad shape because I drink them. They kind of ignore the possibility that going to the gym every other day might have a lot more to do with it.
Sarbonn's blog: http://www.sarbonn.com/blog
Not only that, but recent research points to a person's gut flora having a huge influence on obesity and dietary habits. The whole subject of nutrition and diet is a lot more complex that we imagined.
When someone says, "Any fool can see
Parent is referring to "turbinado" sugar, just google for "sugar in the raw" to find an example of this. They are not referring to brown sugar as in made with molasses.
I guess you misread something.
Probably some factories produce brown sugar that way, but that would be pretty retarded.
Brown sugar is basically what you get if you don't refine it.
And crystal sugar is a complete different thing.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
No, that kind of coke is a well-documented appetite suppressant.
And any fat you exercise away goes out in sweat or urine.
It is actually quite difficult to exercise fat away. E.g. the first 45 minutes of exercise (if it is hard enough) is completely covered by the sugar reserves in your liver.
And if you drink/eat the wrong thing directly after exercise, you just put the fat back into the storage.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
it's going to start eating your muscles ... what ever it is, nothing will attack your muscles.
That is nonsense.
As long as you eat
To "eat" muscles you need to be _starving_ minimum 3 weeks, and after that time mainly only dead cells are "eaten", to really "consume" your muscles yo need to starve much longer-
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
You give advice not to add sugar in coffee?
And then you write nonsense like this: (I'd not worry about the added sugar in stuff like ketchup, unless you find
yourself eating large quantities of it, but do keep an eye on food labels
and eliminate anything that has way more sugar than you'd expect.)
???
Are you somehow retarded? How much sugar does a normal person put into coffee? And how much sugar is contained in Ketchup?
Sugar in coffee is much much less than sugar in Ketchup.
Drink something that tastes better than coffee. or better coffee; you won't need
to sweeten it so much.
Some sweeten only certain styles, e.g. super strong espresso.
And there is nothing wrong with that. The amount of sugar is so low, you wont notice it on your daily intake of calories.
If you have weight problems I suggest to count what you eat over the day and make a rough estimate how many calories that are. E.g. if you eat a burger then the bread has most calories, followed by the french fires. And french fries are poison for people who want to lose weight or stay stable, especially combined with Ketchup. They are the worst food imaginable for one who wants to lose weight.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Artificial sweeteners are the equivalent of having sex with a condom on.
well if you are a woman both indeed can prevent a lot of weight gain
---
It's like head-shaving, early mornings, shouting and strict rules in boot camp; it breaks you into being obedient. Why should you follow your diet when you've got a nice cold, delicious glass of no-guilt Coke Zero sitting next to you? But when drill sergeant "Bland Water" is yelling at you, you *know* that supreme pizza is off-limits.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
If you take the commentaries from historical documents from India and China, it's not the specific substance that determines the reaction, it's the taste. And that, sweet is sweet, regardless of source, producing the same general effects on the body. The only exception was "unheated honey, is a false-sweet, not triggering the expected reactions, however, upon application of heat, it becomes true-sweet."
Unless they had a control group eating the same exact diets (minus the artificial sweeteners) as the artificial-sweetener-consuming group, then the study is complete bullshit.
Here's the thing: Diet soda is about harm reduction. If it didn't exist, I'd still be stuffing my face full of greasy chicken tacos, loaded with cheese and sour cream - but I'd also be drinking an additional 420 calories worth of Coke with the meal too.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
Artificial sweeteners fool the belly buds and trigger a cascade of responses normally associated with sugar. This is one citation, but there are others I have seen. This is pretty settled science it appears.
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
of hotdogs every day and never gain any weight. Me? I can eat like a bird and gain weight all while doing 60 miles a week on my road bike at 15/mph average.
As science gets better we're finding out people aren't fat without reason. It's mostly genetics and gut bacteria as far as we can tell. Yes, the laws of thermodynamics haven't gone away. But there are massive differences in how two people process the same amount of food.
What's that old quote? For every complex problem there's a solution that's simple, elegant and wrong. Guess what, you just found one of those.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Atkins 'works' because you can't eat carbs, and most of the junk food people eat is carbs (Soda, Cake, cookies, etc). People on Atkins clean up their diet. I went vegetarian a few years ago for the same reason and it's kept the weight off. I can't go to Mickey D's and scarf 3 double cheeseburgers when I'm eating veg.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
It's funny you should mention OJ since I stay away from the stuff that's been ripped apart and put back together. I also tend to avoid non whole milk products for the same reason. I don't trust the average executive any farther than I could throw him.
If it's for a recipe, I will make my own juice myself. Generates a far superior result.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
> Probably some factories produce brown sugar that way, but that would be pretty retarded.
It actually sounds like a pretty easy way to generate a consistent product, thus a method most likely to be used. You aren't really stupid enough to trust corporations that much are you? The only reasonable assumption is that "it's people" unless there's a specific disclaimer on the product.
Otherwise, it is certain to be the cheapest piece of crap possible possibly flaunting what few real food regulations we actually have.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
> Milk is a sugar.
Milk is a large combination of things including sugar. It is not raw refined sugar with nothing else in it.
Whole milk is more problematic for it's FAT content unless you are actually lactose intolerant.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
"METHODS We searched MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library (inception to January 2016) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated interventions for nonnutritive sweeteners and prospective cohort studies that reported on consumption of non-nutritive sweeteners among adults and adolescents. The primary outcome was body mass index (BMI). Secondary outcomes included weight, obesity and other cardiometabolic end points."
So....they didn't do any experimentation. They researched a couple databases, collated some results, and posted a paper about it with no verification.
How much sugar does a normal person put into coffee?
I've seen people unload multiple tablespoons of sugar into a cup of coffee. YMMV.
How many times do you eat ketchup a day and how many cups of coffee do you drink? YMMV.
GP was obviously worried enough about the quantity of sugar they were using in
their coffee to substitute an artificial sweetener. I'll error on the side of trusting
them not to be overreacting.
If you have weight problems I suggest to count what you eat over the day and make a rough estimate how many calories that are.
The types of food you eat matter at least as much as the calorie count. If simple
dietary restriction actually worked and was at all tolerable, people would just do that.
As many have and will point out until the point sinks in, your body it not a calorimeter...
it decides how much of the food you eat to digest, and how much energy to give to
your brain and muscles.
Someone had to do it.
First attack vector is always calorie intake.
Then comes 'what you eat'. E.g sugar/carb combined withh fat is bad. (For health and weight)
You can IMHO not take enough sugar with coffee to be worried. Unless you drink so much cofee, that you should be worried about the coffee in the first place.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
It's not about calories but about your addiction to sugar rushes. Sweeteners are like e-cigarettes. The real solution is modifying your addiction behavior. But that's hard so people don't want to hear it.
that is actually false. Insulin is a blood sugar chemical reaction not a reaction to what "might" be coming, it is not influenced by what you taste or think.
Instead of guessing things, why don't you document yourself? The amount of insulin that gets released is not based on the actual sugar content of what you eat, it's based on a fairly complex combination of what's in the liver and how the hypothalamus interprets signals.
lucm, indeed.
Hey feel free to subscribe to common misconceptions instead of educating yourself. This whole subject area has been plagued by such shallow beliefs and unproven "truths" that resistance from the lemmings is to be expected when they're presented with new information.
lucm, indeed.
Did you know that the level of insulin during fasting is higher for obese people? This has been demonstrated time and again, and if you know someone with type-2 diabetes that needs insulin shots, they will confirm to you that it's really difficult to lose weight when you're swimming in insulin, and it's not a matter of being hungry, the body simply won't shed weight.
They did an experiment in the 90s, giving gradually larger doses of insulin to subjects for a period of 6 months while cutting their calorie intake, and yet on average they gained 20 pounds.
There is no pill to fix that. There's some evidence that a diet of mostly high fat and plants with intermittend fasting and intermittent carb days is the best approach. So far it's the best hope because the level of physical activty in the USA has significantly increased at the same time as the level of obesity skyrocketed, so "eat less move more" just doesn't work.
But again, only time will tell.
lucm, indeed.
Carbohydrates and calories have no nutritional value whatsoever?
Calories is a measure of energy, not nutrition. As for carbohydrates, they are not *needed*. They are edible and impact the metabolism, but they are not essential to survive. You could eat cardboard and make it a central part of your diet if you wanted, it wouldn't mean it's something you need. Same goes for carbs.
lucm, indeed.
Without the sugar supply, I get headaches and decreased performance.
This is called "detox".
lucm, indeed.
In January I decided I should do something with my weight.
Come back in one year and tell us about it. 6 months is not evidence when it comes to diets; most dieters gain back the weight after 12 to 18 months.
I'm not saying it will happen to you because you seem to go about it in a responsible way, but don't call things BS based on 6 months of personal data.
lucm, indeed.
Why do you spout such nonsense? Insulin level is trivial to measure. If what you proclaim were actually true it would be obvious and proven.
The level of insulin constantly fluctuates, like the stock market. If you "measure" it at one moment and try again a few minutes later it can vary wildly. That's why most studies are based on insuling level while fasting, to minimize the rollercoaster.
As for things being "obvious and proven", if you take 5 minutes to do a bit of research you will find plenty of studies to support what I mention, and plenty more to discredit the common misconceptions such as "eat less move more to lose weight".
lucm, indeed.
I shudder to think.
That must be exhausting
lucm, indeed.
So yes you probably should use actual sugar, if possible natural sugar (brown) not white processed poison,
Oh, dear. Where to begin....?
(facepalm)
You could begin by replying something if you have actually something to share. Nobody really cares about your facepalms.
lucm, indeed.
when aspartame get metabolized by the liver, it creates byproducts that interfere with dietary fat absorption
So it does make you slimmer? That's great news!
Are you on the rag? I always welcome opposing arguments because that's how we all learn, but people like you who just come to complain and high-five themselves at what they perceive as clever cracks are sucking the life out of these threads.
lucm, indeed.
No, it is like saying milk isn't homogenized when it isn't homogenized, or saying it isn't raw when it has been pasteurized.
You're pro-processing, I get it. But that doesn't mean that processing doesn't exist, now does it?
Brown sugar isn't raw. It is a more-processed product that some people like.
it's going to start eating your muscles ... what ever it is, nothing will attack your muscles.
That is nonsense.
As long as you eat
To "eat" muscles you need to be _starving_ minimum 3 weeks, and after that time mainly only dead cells are "eaten", to really "consume" your muscles yo need to starve much longer-
No. You're once again guessing instead of bringing actual facts. It takes about 3 days before the body starts losing muscle mass if you stop eating carbs and don't replace them properly to enter ketosis.
lucm, indeed.
You can actually buy raw sugar and find out for yourself. Don't be a fucking illiterate asshole, I provided correct information and you're arguing without having looked it up. You didn't look it up, so you don't fucking know. I read the labels of all the food I eat, so I do know.
Fuck an A how fucking stupid do you have to be to argue with people without even looking the shit up?! Did you every consider, what happens if the other person actually read about the fucking manufacturing processes to find out how they are different? What then?! You're not quite that clever, are you?
Right, because the government defines brown sugar as sugar and molasses already. There are often different ways the same ingredient can be described.
If you understood that there is a thing called "raw sugar" and that it is different than brown sugar, then you might be able to comprehend that you can't get brown sugar without adding molasses to sugar. And you get molasses by refining raw sugar into white sugar; it is the stuff they took out of the raw sugar to make it refined sugar. You can't have a natural brown sugar, you just can't. The natural sugar is called "raw sugar." And it is a light blond color.
If you were being sold raw sugar as "brown sugar" as a child, that just means that it was a local name that is a different product than what you would find in a modern grocery store following labeling laws.
Unless it was a local colloquial name, selling raw sugar as "brown sugar" would be false advertising; a scam.
Things you remember from your childhood are not facts. If you make a practice of looking them up now, you'll find out most of it was lies. That is true regardless of what they told you, too, because "things I heard" is almost entirely noise, not data.
People who are overweight consume sugar free products because they are overweight. Its not the fact they are consuming sugar substitutes that causes fatness its being fat and wishing you can get slim that causes consuming sugar substitutes.
You can actually buy raw sugar and find out for yourself.
I live in germany. And no where I ever have been, brown sugar is coloureed white sugar. It is simply raw sugar.
Fuck an A how fucking stupid do you have to be to argue with people without even looking the shit up?!
And how fucktard retarded are you that you can not write 4 or 5 sentences without repeated insults, and swear words?
Sorry, your idea that brown sugar is coloured white sugar makes no sense. And if that is so in your country, then I pitty you.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
No.
You first burn your fat.
As long as you have fat the body does not burn any of its own proteins.
And, in your example you where eating proteins anyway ... so why do you come to the idea instead of burning the food the body is burning itself?
Ketosis is "fat burning only" ... in other words: when you eat proteins, the body burns its fat and the proteins you eat. Not its own muscles, why would it?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Sugars are macronutrients. You need lots of them. This is opposed to micronutrients, which are what your mother refers to when she says "it's nutritious!"
You don't technically need carbohydrates in your diet (probably, I'm not sure anyone has ever actually achieved a zero carb diet for any length of time) because your body can break down other macronutrients, like protein, to make them. But it's kind of a dirty process and it won't make you feel very good.
Most reasonable sources agree that a healthy diet includes about 1/3 of its calories from carbohydrates. The problem is, the majority of westerners get much more than that.
Your brain always needs sugar. Your brain is basically dependent on glucose for energy. Your body can manufacture that glucose from breaking down protein, but it still has to become glucose somewhere along the line.
That doesn't mean eating sugar with a spoon will make you smart.
No. The things you're challenging like the difficulty of measuring insulin are not even controversial, you're just amazingly uninformed and smug at the same time.
Here's a FAQ from a lab:
1. Can I do an insulin test at home?
No. Although glucose levels can be monitored at home, insulin tests require specialized instruments and training are are perforemd at laboratories.
https://labtestsonline.org/und...
And how to prepare fot that test:
Test Preparation Needed?
You may be asked to fast for 8 hours before the blood sample is collected, but occasionally a health practitioner may do the test with, for example, a glucose tolerance test. In some cases, a health practitioner may request that you fast longer.
https://labtestsonline.org/und...
Take one minute to google "measure insulin at home" and you'll see for yourself.
Or just remain a smug ignorant and get your panties in a bunch when people present you with things you didn't know, it's entirely up to you.
lucm, indeed.
I ran across this over about five years ago when a relative forwarded a link to an academic paper. A year later; the lab results on animals were in and you could consistently give a lab rat diabetes by giving them artificial sweeteners. And, it didn't matter which artificial sweetener you used.
The hypothesis is that using artificial sweeteners triggers the taste buds to release hormones to tell the pancreas to produce insulin. But, with no calories to burn, you get lowered blood sugar and feel very hungry. Over time, you train the pancreas to produce less insulin, a condition known as diabetes.
I've been diagnosed as diabetic after a case of pancreatitis back in 2008. I had hell with the side effects of metformin for control of serum glucose. I decided to try an experiment.
I cut out all artificial sweeteners, I rationed my processed sugar intake but didn't eliminate it. (I like sugar in my coffee. Deal!) I added niacin to my morning meds. (Niacin was used for diabetes treatment before there was insulin. Went old school and niacin also lowers cholesterol levels in the blood.)
After six months; I quit taking metformin. That was almost 5 years ago.
NRRPT/RCT
You're wrong.
I prefer the taste of Diet Coke. Regular coke tastes too sweet to me and feels like it's coating my teeth. Mexican coke makes me feel like my head is exploding from sweet.
For whatever reason, my taste buds are that way.
Some people really like Dr. Pepper, others despise it. It's preference.
Don't be a cunt. You implied less fat would be absorbed by the body and more fat leaves the body. Rather than clarify what you said, you just replied like a cunt.
you just replied like a cunt.
And you just did the same. What's your point?
lucm, indeed.
The reason I am drastically reducing all sort of sugar consumption (sugar AND starch - potatoe/bread/pasta etc...) is because the doc think I am what he call "pre-diabetic" e.g. if I continued my way I would get diabetes melittus in short order. Now I have a chance to have my beta cells live a "little" bit longer, apparently. Although since I am not a cat, they won't come back
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Simply do not tell anyone anything different than "it's better for you", then do NOT try to measure anything, and who knows what the probabilities could be!
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
Shit burns - that means there are unspent calories in your shit also.
Linkedin http://in.linkedin.com/in/robinsaikatchatterjee