Anything sweet is probably bad

(Vincent Hall) #2

I can’t see anything in the article to the contrary but I suspect the sweeteners are being consumed on a fairly high carb diet.
It’s an incomplete article IMO, personally I would ignore it unless I could find a more complete version
with specific accurate data.
\v/

(Gabe “No Dogma, Only Science Please!” ) #3

If you want to talk about evidence, there are plenty of tribes who traditionally survived on fish and coconuts. Meaning quite a bit of fructose in the diet. Even Taubes talks about this. So for non-diabetics, I am quite convinced that moderate to high amounts of fruit consumption is probably ok for many people. I lost my first 10kg while eating 1-2 mangoes a day, restricting all other carbs, especially sugar and starchy carbs.

As for the science, there’s plenty of reason to suspect sweeteners. The sweetness could induce an insulin response in and of itself. We just don’t know. To be safe, you can test your blood sugars, but unless you do a glucose tolerance test but instead of glucose consume sweeteners at T=0, you just don’t know what this stuff is doing to your insulin levels. Could be wreaking havoc. Moreover, our understanding of metabolism isn’t complete, and we just don’t know what else these sweeteners are doing to us.

I still think that if you’re going to have something sweet, go for stevia or an artificial sweetener, but I have it on good authority that sweet things should generally be avoided completely if possible.

(Vincent Hall) #4

I’m just rather weary of articles like this without the detailed data to back it up.
But I agree, better to try and keep away from sweeteners.
I’m currently trying to wean myself off Stevia, cutting it down but what I find myself doing is dropping the stuff I would normally put sweetener in. Currently the only things I consume with Stevia now is coffee and my almond milk choc shake. I’ve stopped making all the KETO “treats” and desserts as they just made me want to eat them more.
it’s gonna take me ages to get through the three tubs of Stevia I bought in France though, I could just bin it of course but I have a problem with throwing stuff I paid a lot of money for.
\v/

(Karl) #5

Well, I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I know a guy (me) who drank 2 liters of Diet Dr. Pepper, at least 1 24oz coffee with liquid sucralose and a couple of monster ultra energy drinks pretty much every day… It never stalled me.

Of course, I might become the Toxic Avenger at any moment, but for now? I’m good. And I still have the same artificial sweetener habits to this day.

We’re all different. When I consume artificial sweeteners, they don’t make me crave real sugar or anything.

Also:

Described as “the largest examination to date that tracks biochemical changes in the body”, the study compared the biological effects of diets high in glucose versus aspartame or acesulfame potassium - common artificial sweeteners - in rats.

If you may recall, they did a bunch of rat studies during the Saccharin heyday which prompted the industry to place warning labels on all products containing it. What they didn’t tell the public was that they performed these tests on rats that were predisposed to cancerous tumors without having to feed them saccharin.

I’m not sure if exposing that sham is what got the labels taken off everything containing saccharin, but they no longer are required to carry that warning.

Anyway, if doctors are making sweeping recommendations on what to eat based on a rat study, then the study is already suspect in my eyes, and I ain’t buyin’ a word of it :slight_smile: I am not a rat.

(Jessica) #6

POIDH

(Karl) #7

k.

#8

I am thinking…
Is using artificial sweetener to fight off the crave like fighting fire with fire?

As in, when there is a crave, use artificial sweetener(like stevia). Got more? eat more. Fight all the way till your body knows that you won’t give the sugar.

(Dan Dan) #9

Sweetness itself is not sufficient to start the cephalic response. An unflavored artificial non caloric sweetener by itself did not stimulate insulin secretion. However, when paired with flavour, it may start the the cephalic phase :thinking:

https://idmprogram.com/cephalic-phase-response-hunger-fasting-18/

(Melissa Marie) #10

Just thinking about food is enough to start the cephalic response… If you are craving something that is sugar free it can essentially have the same effect as eating carbs depending on the person and how they feel about the food. I am having to learn this lesson myself. Genetic predisposition has a lot to do with it but also whether or not the brain is being stimulated here which is why some people can successfully consume aspartame, sucralose and even stevia and be fine where others can’t. It is literally an N=1 thing.

"Now, back to the cephalic phase insulin response:

"Think about the typical dieter who denies herself nourishing or satisfying food, who might be quite low in calories, and is simply hungry. Chances are, she just starts to fantasize about food.

Has ever happened to you – where you start to imagine all the forbidden foods that you want to eat? Well, for the person who’s constantly fantasizing about pasta or cookies or cake or ice cream or any sugary or carbohydrate food – they’ll be in a continuous cephalic phase insulin response, and thus producing insulin, even though there are no carbohydrates or sugar for that insulin to act upon.

This means that insulin levels will be artificially high and the insulin will be sitting around with nothing to do. By default, this chemical will then perform its secondary function, which is to store fat and inhibit muscle growth. Add to this the stress of dieting and denying oneself food and satisfaction, and our dieter will also produce more cortisol – yet another fat-storage hormone.

So by constantly fantasizing about carbohydrate-rich foods and leading a stressful life, our dieter will have the exact pieces in place for chronically elevated insulin and cortisol – the precursors for “non-caloric” weight gain."

http://psychologyofeating.com/can-thoughts-be-fattening-video-with-emily-rosen/

"Can just the sight of food raise insulin?
We’ve all heard of studies that show that simply tasting something sweet without ingesting it can raise insulin, but can simply seeing certain foods trigger the same process?
Sylvie
Yes. this is called the cephalic response. The sight or smell of food starts you salivating and insulin starts rising immediately even if you do not eat.
Dr. Jason Fung"

"Some Japanese researchers believe that our thoughts about food can cause actual physical changes that may lead to weight gain.

Their study published in the journal Cell Metabolism, concluded that the anticipation of a sweet treat in mice and rats triggers their muscles to start taking up glucose from the blood and getting ready for action. If that muscle does not in fact get to work, the glucose will be stored as fat.

How does it happen? The researchers identified the culprit as orexin (probably etymologically related to “Oreo”), a protein contained in neurons in the brain’s hypothalamus. Orexin has also been identified as a neurotransmitter involved with pleasure seeking and drug and alcohol addiction.

The idea that our thoughts might trigger a response in our digestive and metabolic systems is not a new one. A 1985 study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition noted that it is "well documented that the sight, smell, and taste of food can profoundly affect an organism’s physiology."

In particular, it’s well known that our mind has the ability to trigger insulin production. It’s called the “cephalic phase insulin response.” And insulin is the hormone that directs our body to store fat."

#11

…which means it is not worth trying for low-carb if one keeps thinking about those foods? <_<

(Melissa Marie) #12

As the article says

From what I have read it desensitization occurs over time if you avoid the stimulus. The neural pathways change and therefore change the response.

But this essentially is how one goes from being a sugar addict/carb addict to a non sugar addict. Some of us will have to be dedicated enough to realize the difference between hunger/what your body truly needs and a craving. If you never try to distinguish between the two you could wind up in a stall and never know what truly caused it. Getting past the attachment to whatever is causing the response (and not creating a new attachment) is the key.

#13

nourish myself? then I eat lots of veg and meat, it shouldn’t be wrong, right?

Also, I was thinking of using fire to fight the fire(use artificial sweetener to fight off: more craving? more sweetener, and lots till the body know that I won’t provide sugar anymore)

(Melissa Marie) #14

What is right/wrong is individual. Macros artificial sweeteners etc. Personally I hated most artificial sweeteners prior to keto, especially stevia. They tasted awful. Now they taste like sugar and I know that some of them are causing a problem for me. My body mistakes them for sugar and treats them as such so there is no fire with fire. My body says ohhh sugar and then insulin is released/progress is lost. For some people they have no problem… But it isn’t appropriate to say that just because one has no ill effects makes it ok for everyone. It is an N=1 thing clearly. IMO It is best to avoid them all if possible as @gabe has mentioned. Research supports this. Trying to supplement one evil for another is not the answer IMO. If you are going to eat it then eat it with caution knowing that it can just as easily turn into another problem and stall or slow weight loss and contribute to other issues not being resolved as they should by this WOE. Testing BG will tell you what is actually going on with you individually.

(Dan Dan) #15

If this were true we should not have any keto snacks or desserts because they elicit the same response :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

#16

Actually the reason why I intend to fight the fire with the fire is because I don’t think I would like to give up all those sweet things. I know sugar/carb is bad, but the sweet thing also? Then WHY SHOULD WE HAVE THE SWEET TASTE IN OUR TASTE BUD? It is like the god/nature is trying to trap us. <_<

Since the nature gives us the ability to taste sweet, it should mean that sweet taste is one of the things that are legit…?

(Randy) #17

Evolution did not account for sweet things being in abundance 24 hrs a day, 365 day a year.

Sweet things were rare and only available for a short time. They allowed humans to store some fat they would need during the winter when food was harder to obtain. So in evolutionary terms, sweet was good.

As far as stevia, sugar alcohols and such, it’s up to each person to figure out what works for them. Some people have issues, some don’t.

#18

Erm… oh? you are excluding the people from tropical area.

In those area, there is no winter.

(Dan Dan) #19

Explain Raisins then :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

#20

I’ve never understood this argument. If you accept the “Out of Africa” theory of where humans did most their evolving, there are fruits all year around. (The warm climate helps, I guess). Dates in winter, grapes in summer, pomegranites in fall, etc.

Not to mention that meat would have to be hunted and basically gorged on or wasted - at least until smoking or salting became a thing. On the other hand, gathering fruit would have ensured fruits literally were available 24 x 7,and if not 365, drying fruits like raisins would make it available more often.

The argument makes sense for grains, which usually are only harvestable once per year, but to me, the “fruit is only available to store fat just before winter” makes no sense to me.

(Melissa Marie) #21

If this were true. I agree. N=1