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...sm/tem_888.pdf

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

On 7/11/2013 8:24 PM, 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...sm/tem_888.pdf
>
> 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 dislike sugar sweetened beverages. No sweeteners in my coffee or tea.
Hate sugared sodas and punches. Sugar sets my teeth on edge.

I have been drinking diet soda since I was a teenager. That's over half
a century. Went through all the different types of sweeteners that were
on or off the market. I down between 3 and 5 cans of Coke Zero a day and
have been for years. Before Coke Zero it was Diet Coke. Before that it
was Tab.

According to that article, I should be a T2 by now, but my BG is perfect
and and I am not overweight.

My thyroid condition is from radiation side effects. Otherwise my
metabolism is in good working order despite all that diet soda.

--
Janet Wilder
Way-the-heck-south Texas
Spelling doesn't count. Cooking does.

On 07/11/2013 07:12 PM, Janet Wilder wrote:
> On 7/11/2013 8:24 PM, 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...sm/tem_888.pdf
>>
>>
>> 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 dislike sugar sweetened beverages. No sweeteners in my coffee or tea.
> Hate sugared sodas and punches. Sugar sets my teeth on edge.
>
> I have been drinking diet soda since I was a teenager. That's over half
> a century. Went through all the different types of sweeteners that were
> on or off the market. I down between 3 and 5 cans of Coke Zero a day and
> have been for years. Before Coke Zero it was Diet Coke. Before that it
> was Tab.
>
> According to that article, I should be a T2 by now, but my BG is perfect
> and and I am not overweight.
>
> My thyroid condition is from radiation side effects. Otherwise my
> metabolism is in good working order despite all that diet soda.
>

Hi Janet,

That is why it is called an "opinion piece". A very
"learned" opinion piece, but still an opinion piece.

The idea was to let folks know why artificial sweeteners
are "suspect". The guy still has to prove his assertions.

Mainly, I wanted folks to know that the "assertion" was
that the body started to think that real stuff wasn't.

-T

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...sm/tem_888.pdf

: 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

On 07/11/2013 07:58 PM, 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...sm/tem_888.pdf
>
> : 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
>

Hi Wendy,

I have read in several places that Stevia did trigger
inappropriately. But, the sources did not reference
their statements, so ...

"Apparently" (note the weasel word), stevia is seen
as just another food by the body.

Here is an nice article on stevia (which does "not"
answer your question):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevia

-T

This our health guru named Dr. Richard Becker. He ranks all artificial sweeteners in the same class as high fructose corn syrup..hydrogenated vegetable oils..sugar and MSG as being highly detrimental to good health. This is one of his spiels on anti oxidants but he also does a great hatchet job on the artificial sweeteners. Try to watch his TV show if you get a chance.
Dr. Becker Lists Antioxidant Sources - Your Health TV - YouTube

On 07/12/2013 11:02 AM, bigwheel wrote:
> This our health guru named Dr. Richard Becker. He ranks all artificial
> sweeteners in the same class as high fructose corn syrup..hydrogenated
> vegetable oils..sugar and MSG as being highly detrimental to good
> health. This is one of his spiels on anti oxidants but he also does a
> great hatchet job on the artificial sweeteners. Try to watch his TV show
> if you get a chance.
> 'Dr. Becker Lists Antioxidant Sources - Your Health TV - YouTube'
> (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LiifoVzSf0)

Thank you!

I do love my colored vegi's. If you buy your eggplant
before its gets too big, you can eat the skins too.
Lots of vits in the skin.

-T

Guess the Eyetalian part of the family tree is not large enough to develop a taste for eggplant. Never even tasted one till I was fully grown. They always looked sorta weird.

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...sm/tem_888.pdf
>
> : 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.


--
I'm Trawley Trash, and you haven't heard the last of me yet.

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...sm/tem_888.pdf
>>
>> : 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

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...sm/tem_888.pdf
> >>
> >> : 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.



--
I'm Trawley Trash, and you haven't heard the last of me yet.

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>

On 07/14/2013 08:38 PM, 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...sm/tem_888.pdf
>>>>
>>>> : 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.

It is a cleaver piece of "reverse engineering". What is missing is
what are the sensors, what are they looking for, what is the control
system trying to maintain, what is the high and low margins of how
far the control system can track, why does it choose to go one path
one time and another the next. Basically, our current understanding
is as thought looking through a glass dimly.

And, I would not think that there is enough inulin in a stevia
packet to throw your fructose too far off. If you were using
inulin as a straight sweetener, then, it would be another subject.
remember that the sugar in fruit and vegetables is a dehydrate
of fructose and glucose (frustose + glucose - water). You get
a lot more fructose eating a (ripe) tomato.



and the other another time.

On Sun, 14 Jul 2013 17:17:32 -0700
Todd > wrote:

> 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

I've already commented once on this chart, but I'd like to
add some context.

The chart shows interactions of glucose and fructose inside
the liver only. Probably there is some text that goes along
with it that would make this clear. The metabolism inside
the muscles, the brain, the reproductive organs, the pancreas
and other organs is different. A complete chart would be
at least ten times as complicated. There really should be
a circle around the central parts showing which reactions
take place in the liver. Galactose is another important
sugar metabolized by the liver that is completely missing
here.

Each of those arrows represents the action of an enzyme
listed in the caption underneath. These enzymes are
specified in our DNA, and their expression can also
be switched on and off by environmental factors. There
are hundreds of these enzymes that vary between individuals.
So each of us metabolizes sugars in a slightly different
way.

--
I'm Trawley Trash, and you haven't heard the last of me yet.