In article >,
Trawley Trash > wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jul 2013 17:17:32 -0700
> Todd > wrote:
>
> > On 07/12/2013 07:28 AM, Trawley Trash wrote:
> > > On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 02:58:13 +0000 (UTC)
> > > "W. Baker" > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Todd > wrote:
> > >> : Hi All,
> > >>
> > >> : Here is a great opinion piece on artificial sweeteners
> > >> : from a journal called:
> > >>
> > >> : Trends in Endocrinology and Metabolism
> > >> : http://www.cell.com/trends/endocrinology-metabolism/
> > >>
> > >> :
> > >> http://download.cell.com/images/edim...ism/tem_888.pd
> > >> f
> > >>
> > >> : A quick summary: artificial sweeteners initially trick the
> > >> : body into reacting as if something sweet is entering. Then
> > >> : the body gets wise to the trick and stops. Then when you
> > >> : do eat something sweet or carbie, the body doesn't react
> > >> : properly. And the satiation response doesn't kick in,
> > >> : causing overeating and T2 to kick in.
> > >>
> > >> : Basically, the criticism of artificial sweeteners is
> > >> : that body gets wise to them and doesn't react appropriately
> > >> : to the real stuff. Not that the body thinks the fake stuff
> > >> : is real, but that the body starts to think the real stuff
> > >> : is fake.
> > >>
> > >> : -T
> > >>
> > >> I didn't read it, for various vision reasons, bu does Stevia do or
> > >> not do the same thing of tricking the body into thinking it is
> > >> getting sugar, etc? It most liekly is the sweetmess pf tehtaste
> > >> that is the problem, not its artificiality . the Stevia is also an
> > >> artificial sugar as it is someting pretending to be a sugar that is
> > >> not(no calories, no carbs) so if the non-nutritive(better word for
> > >> the general catgory) sweetener fools the body into thinking it is
> > >> gettign sugar, thusr eleasing insuin, etc, then Stevia is just as
> > >> guilty.
> > >>
> > >> Wendy
> > >
> > > I think that is probably right. Think about fructose. It is the
> > > sweetest of the common sugars, but it provides no rush of glucose
> > > into the blood. Instead it must be processed by the liver where
> > > it generally ends up as fat. So we get an insulin response from
> > > fructose, but no matching increase in glucose. Some people
> > > develop hypos from this, and many more have to be careful about the
> > > liver fat.
> >
> > Here is a chart that shows glucose and fructose metabolism
> > and how they interact. (They interact A LOT!)
> >
> > http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.co...1/89/figure/F1
>
> Yup. That is the sort of thing I am trying to make sense of.
> Similar charts in wikipedia under "fructose_metabolism" and
> "glucose_metabolism". Notice that fructose and glucose both
> connect directly to "extrahepatic metabolism". That means
> they are used directly outside the liver. What this doesn't
> say is that fructose is used by the testes in making sperm.
> Glucose powers everything else. The dotted line from fructose
> over toward glycogen is only active when the liver needs to
> make more glycogen. So most of the fructose ends up as
> lipoprotein (VLDL) before it is sent back into the blood.
> These are blobs of fat. Some of the fructose does end up
> in the glucose pathway converted into pyruvate and powering
> the Krebs cycle, but this is all going on inside the liver.
> Most glucose is never absorbed by the liver, but is directly
> metabolized elsewhere.
VLDL correlates more closely to CVD than does LDL.
--
Palestinian Child Detained
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzSzH38jYcg>
Remember Rachel Corrie
<http://www.rachelcorrie.org/>
Welcome to the New America.
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg>