sugar detox

This content has been removed.

wolfe1234 wrote: »

ninerbuff wrote: »

Oh and I also have been using artificial sweeteners DAILY for over 25+ years. I should be obese by now if the "hypothesis" is correct.

Correlation doesn't actually equal causation. That should be the take away.

And by that reasoning, if smoking causes lung cancer, my grandfather (see note directly above) should have had lung cancer. Therefore smoking does not cause lung cancer.

Not everyone who smokes gets lung cancer. The link between them, though, is scientifically proven unlike your assertions concerning artificial sweeteners.

This content has been removed.

Christine_72 wrote: »

I have no horse in this race, these are 2 links I've seen re Artificial sugars and gut microbiota. Take them or leave them

http://www.drperlmutter.com/how-sugar-free-spells-danger/?utm_source=DrPerlmutter.com+Newsletter&utm_campaign=95b4cd8f89-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_02_05&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_3e059546f6-95b4cd8f89-99343905&mc_cid=95b4cd8f89&mc_eid=d953625a6e


https://chriskresser.com/how-artificial-sweeteners-wreak-havoc-on-your-gut/?utm_source=ChrisKresser.com&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_e7d56abf8a-ee9c9ca3ac-95902905&utm_content&utm_campaign=ee9c9ca3ac-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2016_11_09&mc_cid=ee9c9ca3ac&mc_eid=56daae840f

Perlmutter has been labeled a quack for many years. and Chris Kresser is a licensed acupuncturist and practitioner of integrative medicine who promotes animal products as a way to optimal health. Neither of these guys has an credibility and there is virtually no science behind their claims. Both of these men are "Dr. Oz" types, trying to sell books and merchandise - they are not interested in real science.

.

wolfe1234 wrote: »

AnvilHead wrote: »

Actually no, they don't. Check diabetes.org for starters.

Until recently, the general belief was that non-nutritive sweeteners (NNSs) were healthy sugar substitutes because they provide sweet taste without calories or glycemic effects. However, data from several epidemiological studies have found that consumption of NNSs, mainly in diet sodas, is associated with increased risk to develop obesity, metabolic syndrome, and type 2 diabetes. The main purpose of this article is to review recent scientific evidence supporting potential mechanisms that explain how "metabolically inactive" NNSs, which have few, if any, calories, might promote metabolic dysregulation. Three potential mechanisms, which are not mutually exclusive, are presented: 1) NNSs interfere with learned responses that contribute to control glucose and energy homeostasis, 2) NNSs interfere with gut microbiota and induce glucose intolerance, and 3) NNSs interact with sweet-taste receptors expressed throughout the digestive system that play a role in glucose absorption and trigger insulin secretion. In addition, recent findings from our laboratory showing an association between individual taste sensitivity to detect sucralose and sucralose's acute effects on metabolic response to an oral glucose load are reported. Taken as a whole, data support the notion that NNSs have metabolic effects. More research is needed to elucidate the mechanisms by which NNSs may drive metabolic dysregulation and better understand potential effects of these commonly used food additives.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26095119

Metabolic syndrome is another name for impaired insulin response, hence my earlier post.

Better tell that to the ADA then. Because diet drinks are an alternative for diabetics.
And impaired insulin response may be a SYMPTOM of metabolic syndrome. One can have metabolic syndrome and have normal insulin response.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition