Were artificial sweeteners introduced to manipulate an insulinogenic response and trigger fat storage?

sweeteners
science
insulin
debate
industry

#1

Given that many people, especially those in certain industries, started a backlash against carbohydrates/sugar and it’s impact on insulin, were artificial sweeteners introduced to the market to trigger a similar insulinogenic response and tell the body to store fat?

People giving up carbs and sugar (both glucose to the body) meant that a huge corner of the market itself was being cut into profit-wise, but the kickback into other industries such as the pharmaceutical and health industry would have also taken a huge hit because less people being insulin resistant and obese usually means less health issues.

Given that we’ve been lied to for years regarding carbs and fat, and told fat is bad for us, and this was even backed by the agricultural industry, we should keep a healthy degree of skepticism regarding anything newly introduced to the market as there may be an ulterior motive.

I for one believe that there is an ulterior motive. If I’m on a zero carb diet, and have a diet made up entirely of adequate protein and fat as my macronutrients, but I drink something with an artificial sweeteners such as Sucralose which triggers an insulinogenic response, then my body is still getting the instruction on a hormonal level to store energy for later, essentially confusing the body into storing fat for later.

I don’t believe this is any coincidence. So, we need to ask the question, ‘What is the real motive for the introduction of artificial sweeteners to the marketplace?’


(Bunny) #2

Refined bleached sugar cane and attempting to replicate this substance is the goal, it’s not something that occurs in nature because it is pure sugar (most people do not get that?) and that’s it, stripped of 100 or so rare trace elements and minerals; it is like what pure cocaine would be to a drug dealer, they need to cut the cocaine with another substance; not to make more money; that’s just a plus of doing business, but because it will kill you dead and refined sugar is the same-thing and just as lethal, just takes longer to kill you…You build up tolerance to any kind of substance you put in your body to a certain point?

Likewise refined sugars mess up your gut flora microbiota just as well as the hormone insulin in fat storage signaling ratios (eventually as you age)?

Composition of gut flora microbiota ratios plays a very important role in this also, sending instructions to the liver to store fat or create new fat cells, humans are much more complex than simply thinking in terms of insulin or cortisol being the only precursors or hormones to fat storage signaling or losing the fat long-term, the extra estrogen (bad estrogens) stored in the fat cells of both men and women act in a perpetual cycle to restore the fat cell, telling it to create a new fat cell, expand, contract or fully dissipate pre-existing fat cells? …

EXPERIMENT ANOLOGY:

Take a bowl and throw some bread (grains) in it then some refined sugar like high fructose corn syrup or artificial sweetener and let’s mix some starch (starch by itself is actually good for you) and then throw some veggies, fat and meat in that mess and put a little water or diet soda then cover it with plastic wrap? Could you imagine the gases and microbes that would be fermenting and culturing (not fully digested by the enzymes from the pancreas and hydrochloric acid in your stomach i.e. gut; gastrointestinal tract?) in that mess with time?


(Omar) #3

no evil equates to table sugars.


(Chris) #4

Many bodybuilders live off of Crystal Lite and Diet sodas. I do not think they are nearly that evil. I think they are garbage, but…


(Karen) #5

Artificial sweeteners were introduced to make money. It’s business not a conspiracy. Wait, did I really say that!?:sweat_smile::sweat_smile::sweat_smile:


#6

A very intriguing look at sugar


(Banting & Yudkin & Atkins & Eadeses & Cordain & Taubes & Volek & Naiman & Bikman ) #7

Seems unlikely.


(Edith) #8

According to Gary Taube’s in The Case Against Sugar, the fattening quality of sugar has been known almost as long as it’s been around.
Even Teddy Roosevelt liked the idea of artificial sweetener (I think it was saccharin) over sugar because he was very aware of his expanding waistline.

I don’t think artificial sweeteners were invented as some “let’s make people fat” conspiracy. I do believe ithey were introduced because everyone (willing to admit it or not) knew sugar was fattening.

In fact, again mentioned by Taubes, it was research funded by the sugar industry used to try and discredit artificial sweeteners.

Humans frequently accept new things before they know everything about them. I believe artificial sweetener is the same. I do believe the sweeteners were introduced with good intentions.

My mom received X-ray therapy for severe acne in the 50s. I’m sure it seemed like a good idea at the time.


(Ethan) #9

I don’t believe this is any coincidence. So, we need to ask the question, ‘What is the real motive for the introduction of artificial sweeteners to the marketplace?’

Not everything is a conspiracy, and even when there is a conspiracy, it isn’t always for the reason you think. It’s highly unlikely that artificial sweeteners were introduced with the purpose of producing a hormonal response that will make you sick so that you need drugs to get better. The real motive for introducing artificial sweeteners to the marketplace: DEMAND FOR SWEET THINGS!


(LeeAnn Brooks) #10

Artificial sweetners were developed long before Atkins made low carb a common thing. I think we’re seeing more of them in the market because as more is understood about the dangers of sugar, the demand for them has increased. Simply supply and demand. But as more people start to nderstand the dangers of artificial sweetners, industry is responding by finding/inventing even more types of artificial seeetners. It’s anfog chasing its tail.


(Anne) #11

Yup, saccharin has been around since the late 1800s and it’s still used today! Sweet n low is saccharin.


(Scout) #12

Looks so interesting. I just placed a hold at the library.


#13

At least two artificial sweeteners were discovered by accident. Saccharin in the 1800s was one of them, so no. No conspiracy there.
If people take something and make money off a trend - that’s just business sense.


#14

Couldn’t the same argument be applied to sugar and grains? As far as I’m concerned, something can make perfect business sense from a profit-motive point of view, but also be duping the general population into doing something that is ultimately bad for their health. Look at the history of smoking and marketing, for example. We could be experiencing the same with artificial sweeteners.


#15

I still don’t consider that a conspiracy. I don’t see much advertising in the way of “artificial sweeteners are good for you” as back in the day when things like smoking, and 7-up for babies where actually advertised as healthy and almost necessary. (I like to browse old ads on pinterest sometimes - some of them are awful lol - put your wife over your knee if she doesn’t bring home ___ beer).

We are lucky in this day and age to have acess to such a wealth of information. I don’t like that big companies fund studies and then try to twist the science to suit their needs, because I feel that muddies the waters and makes it hard for the everyday person to figure out what’s going on.

I guess I just haven’t seen much push or advertising or any whatever to use artificial sweaters (maybe stevia if anything). If anything I try to find ways to justify using them and come up empty handed.

I think they had their day back in the 70s or 80s when everyone was cico dieting and cardio-ing themselves to death. But even then, fat was the bad guy, not sugar so I don’t think the increase of use in artificial sweetener was in response to people becoming wise about insulin response etc.

I don’t know if any of that made sense. It got long and I forgot what the original post was lol.