Interesting but more behind it

stevencloser

RuNaRoUnDaFiEld wrote: »

cerise_noir wrote: »

RuNaRoUnDaFiEld wrote: »

https://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/mercola.html

Some reading for you about the "Doctor" you are quoting.

Yeah, I'd much rather listen to THE Doctor in a response above.

Snap, I'd trust him not to twist things more than Mercola.

Rule 1: The Doctor lies.

NorthCascades

RuNaRoUnDaFiEld wrote: »

Mercola has been ridiculed by his peers.

Please post the studies.

I'm sure a lot of people had difficult childhoods.

OliveGirl128

jwhoblit wrote: »

Hey Run, if you really want them, give a me a couple days to pull them and I put them up for you so you can shoot holes through them.
Steve, you can trick the body into things. While I will agree that it ISN'T the sole purpose of medical problems, it is a catalyst or link to Type ll diabetes and cardiovascular issues. But again there are a lot of other aspects with their lifestyles that primarily promote it. Much to the reason why we don't give sweeteners to diabetics but glucose or real sugar foods if able.

Is this a typo? The American Diabetes Association recommends that diabetics use artificial sweeteners, because it doesn't cause spikes. My family is full of type 2 diabetics (and one type 1), and they all use artificial sweeteners as part of a way to manage their diabetes.

http://www.diabetes.org/food-and-fitness/food/what-can-i-eat/making-healthy-food-choices/what-can-i-drink.html

Also, back when I was overweight I was a pre-diabetic. I started using artificial sweeteners for the first time, when I started my weight loss phase. 50lbs lost and now several years into maintenance I have fasting glucose numbers in the 80s. I continue to use artificial sweetener several times a day, every day.

kimny72

jwhoblit wrote: »

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/12/23/amp/artificial-sweeteners-confuse-body.aspx

https://www.washington.edu/wholeu/2016/08/19/artificialsugars/

And there are many more. And it's not to say that these are end all. As there are multiple on the other side of the aspect. There are still plenty of studies going all around.

I'm not even going to start with Mercola, he is a snake oil salesman hiding behind an MD in family medicine.

Your second link goes to an article on a University website, not a study. It's basically a blog post by someone named Quinn Russell Brown, who when you click through to his page seems to mostly write about Faculty Friday. He has no listed credentials.

So there's nothing here to debate.

If artificial sweeteners "tricked" the body into either producing insulin or immediately storing sugar as fat, the vast majority of diabetics would become morbidly obese or dead (every diabetic and pre-diabetic I know uses artificial sweeteners). And this affect would I think be easily observable in scientific research. So do you have links to research that has been done that shows this actually happening in the body? Or explains how this actually biologically happens? Not a blog post or a sales page?

cerise_noir

NorthCascades wrote: »

RuNaRoUnDaFiEld wrote: »

Mercola has been ridiculed by his peers.

Please post the studies.

I'm sure a lot of people had difficult childhoods.

:laugh:
Poor MercLOLa

nutmegoreo

NorthCascades wrote: »

RuNaRoUnDaFiEld wrote: »

Mercola has been ridiculed by his peers.

Please post the studies.

I'm sure a lot of people had difficult childhoods.

Seems his adulthood isn't getting much better.

Alatariel75

jwhoblit wrote: »

Hey Run, if you really want them, give a me a couple days to pull them and I put them up for you so you can shoot holes through them.
Steve, you can trick the body into things. While I will agree that it ISN'T the sole purpose of medical problems, it is a catalyst or link to Type ll diabetes and cardiovascular issues. But again there are a lot of other aspects with their lifestyles that primarily promote it. Much to the reason why we don't give sweeteners to diabetics but glucose or real sugar foods if able.

Uh, what? Diabetics are almost universally advised to use sweeteners and to avoid real sugar foods.

grinning_chick

jwhoblit wrote: »

https://www.washington.edu/wholeu/2016/08/19/artificialsugars/

From the quoted website, under the 'Weighing the Risk" header alone:

"...you might be..."

"You could be..."

"...may tend to be more at risk for such events in the first place."

"...may throw off..."

"...suggested..."

"They’re unknown..."

"It’s always possible, but there’s currently no robust evidence for it,..."

"After reviewing the research, the European Union’s Food Safety Authority determined that many of the rats likely died from an infection, not aspartame, and that the rest were killed not by the sweetener itself but by the sheer size of the dose."

"Their findings have yet to be replicated in other labs, which is a core principle of science."

I could go on and do the same for the rest of the article.

I do not think that website means what you think it means. You may want to actually read it vs. looking at its pretty graphic flair and assuming it does. While in its attempt to be objective, it leaves a lot to be desired, it does not support your position. At all.

Christine_72

I think maybe OP was replying to an artificial sugar thread, and accidentally started his own thread. Not that it changes the content in his post, just sayin'. @jwhoblit