Re: sweeteners

August 20, 2003

Hey Andy,

Yep, you're right. The connection to taste sensations is only hypothesized,

AFAIK. That's one of the reasons I really don't worry about consuming the

stuff. I believe that someone posted an article on insulin response to

stevia here a year ago, or maybe even further back, but that's all I've ever

seen on it. As far as other artificial sweeteners go, there seems to be a

really strong troop that are against them for a host of reasons (causes

aneurisms, strokes, cancer, seeing the dead, and other horrific things!!),

but I've never seen really convincing evidence against aspartame (the most

popular) -- my stance (which I can't really substantiate) is if they cause

you problems, don't use them, but otherwise they seem to be fine. I tend to

shy away from artificial sweeteners other than stevia because most work like

lotsa coffee and I don't like rushing to the washroom, but that doesn't

prevent me from consuming diet softdrinks when nothing else is readily

available (and I'm sure the other stuff in them is worse for me than the

aspartame).

As for other artificial sweeteners, I believe that sacharine has been linked

to increased cancer risk (remember seeing some studies, and such warning

were on bottles in the 80s), but not an enormous increase, which is why it

is still a very viable option for diabetics. etc... I don't think it's

normally used on the market as a sweetener unless specifically for

diabetics, but I could be wrong (I don't look for such things in the

supermarket).

Either way, I consume stevia regularly and don't worry about it.

Cheers,

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Andy [mailto:endofthedream@...]

> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 9:03 AM

>

> Subject: [ ] Re: How many fruits do you guys eat daily?

>

> Hello .

>

> > You mention Stevia as an alternative sweetener. I use it fairly

> > regularly, especially when it's hot in the summer. It seems to be

> > quite safe, though there is an insulin reaction like with sugar

> > (some hypothesize it's related to the sensation of tasting

> > sweetness, rather than any actual digestive process), but these

> > seems common to all sweeteners, regardless of calorie load.

>

> *****Yes, I've heard of this " oral " reaction to sweetners too. To

> date, however, I have not read any credible scientific studies that

> definitely show the link. (Oh, I hear Dr.s and " extremists " say " it

> raises the blood sugar! " but when I ask them for some kind of

> scientific validation, they stutter and say, " Oh there are *plenty*

> of studies! " Really? Show me!!

>

> If non-caloric sweeteners such as sucrulose, stevia, and even

> aspartame!, produce insulin reactions, how is it that the National

> Institutde of Diabetes recommends " moderate " use of such non-caloric

> sweeteners? From one of their 2003 Fact Sheets comes the following:

>

> " There are two main categories of artificial sweeteners:

>

> (1) Non-nutritive. These contain NO calories and *do not affect the

> blood glucose levels* [emphasis added]...Splenda, Saccharin,

> Aspartame;

>

> (2) Nutritive. These contain calories and have varying effect on the

> blood glucose levels...Sorbitol, Manitol, Xylitol, Maltodextrin. "

>

> As well, the highly-regarded Mayo Clinic (recently listed by " US News

> & World Report " as the Number Two overall hospital in the US, and the

> number one hospital in diabetes research), had this to say about the

> effects of artificial sweeteners on blood sugar:

>

> " No studies have proved negative effects of artificial sweeteners on

> diabetes.

>

> Artificial sweeteners are calorie-free. They make foods taste

> sweeter. But they don't raise blood sugar levels. They don't count as

> a carbohydrate, a fat or any other exchange.

>

> Most beverages and some hard candies that contain artificial

> sweeteners have almost no calories. So you can drink or eat them as

> often as you like.

>

> But keep in mind that some foods containing artificial sweeteners,

> such as sugar-free yogurt, also contain calories and can affect your

> blood sugar level. In addition, some foods labeled sugar-free, such

> as sugar-free cookies and chocolates, may contain sweeteners such as

> sorbitol or mannitol that contain calories and can affect your blood

> sugar level.

>

> The American Diabetes Association approves the use of three

> artificial sweeteners in moderation. These include:

>

> Saccharin (Sprinkle Sweet, Sweet-10, Sugar Twin, Sweet'n Low)

> Aspartame (NutraSweet, Equal)

> Acesulfame potassium (Sweet One). "

>

> Does anyone have alternative, CREDIBLE scientific *facts* that

> dispute the effects of artifical sweeteners on the blood chemistry?

> (E.g., drink two 8-oz glasses of H20 sweetened with splenda (or

> stevia) ... we KNOW water does not spike an insulin reaction due to a

> glucose response...would the artificially sweetened H20 cause a

> spike? If so, it must be a reaction to the artificial sweetener

> since no other food components factor into this experiment. I am

> more interested in general findings: I'm sure one can find " a " study

> in which 1 out of 1000 people experienced a " positive response. "

> Personally, I don't find that result of much concern. With a 0.001

> response, although it may be perfectly " valid, " one can also conclude

> that other " factors " [esp. psychological] came into play.)

>

> > I actually find I use it less and less each year, as sweets just

> > don't pose as much of a temptation, but I don't think there's any

> > specific reason to limit stevia if you enjoy it and especially not

> > if it helps you to avoid the temptations of other things.

>

> *****Likewise here. I have been on my " modified CRON " diet now for

> about three months, losing about 1 lb of bodyfat per week,

> effortlessly!! (yeah!!), basically by eating mainly UNrefined foods

> and thus very, very little sweetened products (except for naturally

> sweetened, such as fruit or the natural sugars occuring in milk

> products). As a result my desire/craving for sweetened products has

> diminished greatly (ex: I find green tea, whether 'flavored' as

> in " lime " or just 'pure plain' to be highly palatable w/o any

> sweeteners added).

>

> Why the change in my " attitude " ? The " script " out of which I viewed

> food for 48 years has been re-written. My " wiring " has changed. As

> Walford said in both editions of his book (120YD), " If you are

> currently on the typical Western-stule American diet, you do have to

> change your attitude towards, and your built-in social programming

> about, food. But you didn't write your own attitudes or programs

> anyway. They have been written into you by the experiences of

> childhood and a lifelong daily barrage of slick advetising, which

> tried to make you believe you are somehow deprived if you are not

> eating junk food, or that it's deliciously decadent and chic to be

> dining on the precursors of arteriosclerotic plaques. "

>

> ~ andy

>

August 20, 2003

--- In , " Gifford " <gifford@u...>

wrote:

~ a few thoughts on yours :-) ....

> I believe that someone posted an article on insulin response to

> stevia here a year ago, or maybe even further back, but that's all

> I've ever seen on it.

*****Yes, I've seen this kind of " study, " but nothing substantive

from any Major Research group or facility. Just rumors and beliefs

floating around. About which I am suspicious.

> As far as other artificial sweeteners go, there seems to be a

> really strong troop that are against them for a host of reasons

> (causes aneurisms, strokes, cancer, seeing the dead, and other

> horrific things!!), but I've never seen really convincing evidence

> against aspartame (the most popular)

*****From what I've read from credible sources, aspartame is the most

wildly and thoroughly tested artificial sweetener. It has been given

rigorous examinations and passed them with flying colors (except for

those afflicted with Phenylketonuria, a rare inherited disease that

prevents the essential amino acid phenylalanine from being properly

metabolized...those folks need to avoid it.)

However, if you do a google search on aspartame, you will read about

HORRORS! It is simply unbelievable the physical evils that apartame

is accused of producing. If aspartame caused 1/10th of the problems

these sites claim, you can be sure it would be off the market

(special interests groups notwithstanding). Again, as I said in a

previous post, when 1 out of 1,000 or 10,000 people develop brain

cancer after consuming apartame, one *can* go on to claim a causal

connection (blindly ignoring all the other factors which might have

been contributory to the carcinoma). And that is what I suspect

happens with this " rouge " sites. Just to counter the " brain cancer

scare, " it is worth noting that the American Cancer Society (on their

web site) clearly states that aspartame does not cause cancer. In

fact, aspartame (due to the nature in which it is metabolized) never

reaches the organs of the body. Study after clinical study, performed

at such reputable places as Columbia University and MIT, have

stated: " even daily large doses of the high-intensity sweetener

aspartame, also known as NutraSweet, had no adverse effect on study

subjects' health and well-being...We conclude that aspartame is safe

for the general population. " ( A. Spiers, visiting scientist in

the Clinical Research Center of MIT).

NONE of the above suggests that aspartame is " good " or healtful, nor

does it imply that diverse people with varying biologies won't

experience unpleasant (and possibly serious) side effects from

consumption of the substance. Some adverse reactions may be a result

of consuming massive quantities; some from pre-existing conditions;

some from other causes which are attributed to aspartame.

Personally, I have at *most* 1-2 servings of the stuff a day,

alternating it with Splenda or stevia. Physically, none of the

artificial sweeteners both me, probably because I use them in such

limited quantity. And there, I think, is the critical point. While

the application of artificial sweeteners may help shave off a few

calories (and keep blood surgar more in check), it has a downside: it

doesn't allow one to become accustomed to the NATURAL sweetness of

whole, unprocessed foods. And that is where I feel the human

population should be going. For those who are in good-to-excellent

health, no where near diabetes, and who exercise regularly and are

physically active, probably sugar is the best bet (again, used with

extreme moderation). It is natural and the body is able to

metabolize it with no side effects (I'm talking about including

something on the order of 1-2 teaspoons of sugar in a cup of

coffee...that kind of usage...if one is eating a primarily UNrefined

diet, one won't be consuming sugary foods, nonstop, throughout the

day...I think sugar is probably the safest of sweetners).

About stevia...it *appears* to be safe, and, like sucrose, it

is " natural, " but from sources that I trust, I have read that it

hasn't been subjected to the intense scrutiny that aspartame has.

Nonetheless, I use it, again, in extreme moderation, being more

concerned with not " inciting " my natural inclination towards sweets.

> -- my stance (which I can't really substantiate) is if they cause

> you problems, don't use them, but otherwise they seem to be fine.

*****Yes, this is what I would suggest. Human biology being so

individually idiosyncratic, what upsets one person's tummy (or

digestive tract) may have absolutely no effect on anothers. It seems

unnecessarily parochial to say what works for " me " MUST be so for you

(and that " I " am the " right " one in this discussion). But, as I've

pointed to before, some unconscious need for security tends to make

us behave, believe and argue in that manner.

> I tend to shy away from artificial sweeteners other than stevia

> because most work like lotsa coffee and I don't like rushing to the

> washroom, but that doesn't prevent me from consuming diet

> softdrinks when nothing else is readily available (and I'm sure the

> other stuff in them is worse for me than the aspartame).

*****Yeah. I'm mucho suspicious of how the body handles Red Dye 40

and all its " cousins. " I suspect that an occasional consumption of

such chemicals is nothing that a healthy liver can't detox. The

question becomes: how well can the liver clear out unrelenting

assaults of colored, sweetened, artificially chemicalized (is there

such a word??) substances day-in-and-day-out. Perhaps that is where

the problems arise? Not one particular product itself, but the whole

host of chemicals that modern society consumes on a regular ongoing

basis? Again, a sound and safe solution seems to be a

basically " whole-foods diet " made up of primarly UNrefined foods.

Just my two cents. :-))

~ andy

August 20, 2003

Andy Wrote: (re: aspartame or NutraSweet)

>NONE of the above suggests that aspartame is " good " or healtful, nor

does it imply that diverse people with varying biologies won't

experience unpleasant (and possibly serious) side effects from

consumption of the substance. Some adverse reactions may be a result

of consuming massive quantities; some from pre-existing conditions;

some from other causes which are attributed to aspartame.

Hi Andy,

I agree. No matter what the science says pro or con we can have reactions

to substances, as I have with NutraSweet or Aspartame.

It was nothing serious, but I always felt as if my body was retaining fluids

improperly after drinking liquids sweetened by NutraSweet. My sister had

the same problems exactly, so maybe there is a genetic connection too.

It was reproducible over a year or so before I totally abandoned ever using

it again.

I have been using Splenda (sucralose) instead with no problems whatsoever.

The other CR list has a huge archive of discussions about it. You can

search here too, but more info is over there. Warren , a member of

both lists, can provide the pure form at a big discount. Many CR list

people buy direct from Warren. Again, all that information is in the

archives including how to contact Warren.

..

August 20, 2003

We have a file on " Where to get stuff " under our Recipes folder. Warren's

contact info is in there. But for those too lazy to search it's:

warren.taylor@...

on 8/20/2003 4:32 PM, numicucamonga at no-spam-please@... wrote:

> Many CR list

> people buy direct from Warren. Again, all that information is in the

> archives including how to contact Warren.

August 20, 2003

comments inserted below

JR

-----Original Message-----

From: Andy [mailto:endofthedream@...]

Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 2:38 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: sweeteners

--- In , " Gifford " <gifford@u...>

wrote:

~ a few thoughts on yours :-) ....

> I believe that someone posted an article on insulin response to

> stevia here a year ago, or maybe even further back, but that's all

> I've ever seen on it.

*****Yes, I've seen this kind of " study, " but nothing substantive

from any Major Research group or facility. Just rumors and beliefs

floating around. About which I am suspicious.

======================JR====================

Brala and hagen, " Effects of sweetness Perception "

N Geary, Carbohydrate effect on hunger and Obesity: Commentary on Geiselman

and Novin (1982), " Appetite 6(1985):60-63

P.J Geiselman, " sugar induced Hyperphagia: Is Hyperinsulinemia,

Hypoglycemia, or any other factor a necessary condition? " Appetite 11

Supplement (1988):26-34

J. Rodin, J. Wack, E Ferrannini, and R.A. De Fronzo, " Effect of Insulin and

glucose on feeding behavior " , Metabolism 34(1985):826-831

M.G. Tordoff and M.L. Friedman, Drinking saccharin Increases food intake and

Preference-IV, Cephalic phase and metabolic factors " ,Appetite 12(1989):37-56

---------

Those are just the footnotes to one early mention of insulin response from

consumption of real and artificial sweeteners in the book " The Psychology of

eating & Drinking " , A.W.Logue. I apologize that the references aren't recent

but the book was written in '86 and updated in '91.

Perhaps more to the point is a later discussion of cephalic reflex response

to artificial sweeteners. Upon consumption of sweet tasting food your body

expects calories and cranks up insulin production. This insulin stores

circulating blood sugar into fat and muscles actually causing a drop in

blood sugar.

------------

J.E. Blundell and A.J. Hill, " Paradoxical Effects of an Intense sweetener

(Aspertame) on appetite " , The Lancet (May 10, 1986):1092-1093

P.M. Brala and R.L. Hagen, " Effects of Sweetness perception and Caloric

Value of a preload on short term intake, " Physiology and Behavior 30

(1982):1-9

K.P. Porikos and H.S. Koopmans, " The effects of non-nutritive sweeteners on

body weight in rats, " Appetite 11 supplement(1988):12-15

M.G. Tordoff and M.I. Friedman, " Drinking Saccharin increases food intake

and preference-I. Comparison with other drinks, " Appetite 12 (1989):1-10

I believe our body also has the ability to learn over time if we regularly

consume non-caloric sweetened foods that do not in fact deliver energy and

adjust it's response but if we eat both real sweets (like fruit) and fake

sweets (like splenda or stevia) I doubt it will ever learn to suppress the

cephalic reflex.

(I hand keyed the above references so I apologize if I fat fingered any.)

=================JR=================