Good news for people who like eating fat!

blktngldhrt wrote: »

volfan22 wrote: »

In every keto site I follow they all recommend the drops instead of the granules.

Which sites are you following?

rprussell2004 wrote: »

baconslave wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

I think her point is that you have to process it to get it in that form (white sugar), but I still don't see how that makes it different (or less "natural") than various forms of processed stevia, which were claimed as "natural" and what I (jokingly) was comparing to sugar.

Or for that matter than any cooked food, which is hardly in a state of nature. Why is it okay to add some dried cherries to rhubarb to sweeten it, but not a bit of sugar?

Indeed, being on a plate seems kind of "unnatural" if you are going to be a purist about it.

Exactly what kinds of "naturalness" are we supposed to care about when it comes to food and on what basis? This is the argument that always comes up re milk and I've never understood it there either.

The problem with stevia, and any other artificial sweetener, is that it's often mixed with a carrier, since it isn't bulky enough in powder form, and has a filler, like maltodextrin or dextrose, which adds carbs to it to the tune of 1g per teaspoon. That's why you want to get the "purer" stuff, not because it was blessed by baby Jesus.

I know you probably know that lemurcat, I'm just clarifying.

People, EVERYTHING is "processed" in one way or another before you eat it.

Trader joes sells an organic stevia powder that's JUST STEVIA. Like, if you use a tenth of a tablespoon you're overdoing it. No binders at all.

That's what I tend to use in my coffee.

I use that Stevia powder, too. Nothing in it but Stevia leaves.

I also use splenda with binders when I bake. Guess I'll be tarred and feathered for being a bad keto-er.

Not from me you won't. Fillers just steal away your carbs, which are low levels to begin with. It's BETTER to preserve them when you can, so you have more to "spend." But if you have to use them, or you just don't care whether or not you use them, your carbs will be a little higher, but that doesn't make you a bad ketoer. We choose what we want to do with our carbs. Some days I have no fiber at all because I choose carbs without them. Others, I have as many as 10g of fiber when I feel like eating more veggies. Neither is better than the other. Personal choice. I use the liquid sweeteners because I want to preserve my carbs for nuts, and cheese, and some times veggies. I get to eat more. Does that make me a better "keto queen" than anyone else? Of course not.

We're not trying to make this a "sweetener snob" argument. We're just trying to cut carbs where we can. I personally prefer splenda, but I can't afford the liquid version and the carbs in the powder aren't worth it to me. So I found a way that works.

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

I've yet to see someone on this site who takes that position about milk and doesn't go on to moralize about what others should do.

On the other hand, plenty of people say they are vegans or vegetarians for ethical reasons without making general statements about how others should eat (or how others are being "unnatural"), and they haven't been given a hard time that I've seen.

I'm not sure if you are serious or not. I thought about starting a post that I was going to transition to a vegan diet for ethical reasons to test your hypothesis, but I think I've probably posted too often about my diet.

You know someone will just dress up a strawman and put words in your mouth. I wouldn't bother with the aggravation personally.

It's kind of funny that beets, cantaloupes, clementines, pineapples, appricots and peaches have so much sucrose (yes, sucrose, sometimes two to three times as much sucrose as fructose or glucose) but sucrose is being demonized, and foods that contain it are not.

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

SnuggleSmacks wrote: »

It's kind of funny that beets, cantaloupes, clementines, pineapples, appricots and peaches have so much sucrose (yes, sucrose, sometimes two to three times as much sucrose as fructose or glucose) but sucrose is being demonized, and foods that contain it are not.

The OP was about health benefits of a LCHF diet, but I'm not sure that is the same as demonizing sucrose. But on 15-20 g of net carbs a day, I doubt these people are eating much fruit either.

You must have missed the last few pages. The conversation evolved quite a ways from LCHF.

SnuggleSmacks wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

SnuggleSmacks wrote: »

It's kind of funny that beets, cantaloupes, clementines, pineapples, appricots and peaches have so much sucrose (yes, sucrose, sometimes two to three times as much sucrose as fructose or glucose) but sucrose is being demonized, and foods that contain it are not.

The OP was about health benefits of a LCHF diet, but I'm not sure that is the same as demonizing sucrose. But on 15-20 g of net carbs a day, I doubt these people are eating much fruit either.

You must have missed the last few pages. The conversation evolved quite a ways from LCHF.

Yes. But the argument did not become "sucrose is the devil." It became "Is sucrose in the form of table sugar less natural than sucrose in fruits because it is refined?"

No demons there, except for our own personal ones.

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

SnuggleSmacks wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

SnuggleSmacks wrote: »

It's kind of funny that beets, cantaloupes, clementines, pineapples, appricots and peaches have so much sucrose (yes, sucrose, sometimes two to three times as much sucrose as fructose or glucose) but sucrose is being demonized, and foods that contain it are not.

The OP was about health benefits of a LCHF diet, but I'm not sure that is the same as demonizing sucrose. But on 15-20 g of net carbs a day, I doubt these people are eating much fruit either.

You must have missed the last few pages. The conversation evolved quite a ways from LCHF.

Actually, I was pretty involved in the last few pages. Which post demonized sucrose?

None of them.

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

I've yet to see someone on this site who takes that position about milk and doesn't go on to moralize about what others should do.

On the other hand, plenty of people say they are vegans or vegetarians for ethical reasons without making general statements about how others should eat (or how others are being "unnatural"), and they haven't been given a hard time that I've seen.

I'm not sure if you are serious or not. I thought about starting a post that I was going to transition to a vegan diet for ethical reasons to test your hypothesis, but I think I've probably posted too often about my diet.

I've mentioned a bunch of times that I get meat from local farms for ethical reasons of my own and no one has ever given me a hard time about it. (Of course, it's entirely possible no one reads my posts.)

baconslave wrote: »

SnuggleSmacks wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

SnuggleSmacks wrote: »

It's kind of funny that beets, cantaloupes, clementines, pineapples, appricots and peaches have so much sucrose (yes, sucrose, sometimes two to three times as much sucrose as fructose or glucose) but sucrose is being demonized, and foods that contain it are not.

The OP was about health benefits of a LCHF diet, but I'm not sure that is the same as demonizing sucrose. But on 15-20 g of net carbs a day, I doubt these people are eating much fruit either.

You must have missed the last few pages. The conversation evolved quite a ways from LCHF.

Yes. But the argument did not become "sucrose is the devil." It became "Is sucrose in the form of table sugar less natural than sucrose in fruits because it is refined?"

No demons there, except for our own personal ones.

Well, if we want to be precise, what happened was someone was going on about certain kinds of stevia being "natural" vs. other kinds, and the "natural" kind was an extract. Someone said that it being natural did not necessarily make it better, as cyanide is natural, and I added that under that particular definition of "natural"--allowing for an extract to be counted--so was white sugar, as both are derived from plants. (I didn't spell all that out, but it was obvious in the comment.)

Based on that, I got jumped on and told I didn't know the meaning of "natural."

(As if there were one, and as if my point was ever that sugar is "natural," which I think is a silly thing to care about.)

Are there good keto-related reasons to prefer one form of stevia to another? Seems so, and that's great for those who do keto. Doesn't have to do with "nature," though. Lots of "natural" foods are no doubt terrible for keto, like the all-natural potato!