Interesting but more behind it

Options
This issue is not with the lack of calories being consumed. Your body needs sugars to work and function. The best is as it's always been said, fruits. But even then break it down into the anatomy and physiology of the body, you have different types of sugars needed. Your body breaks down what you eat into everything it needs. The issue with artificial sweeteners is that when you consume them your make your body believe it is getting sugar. So your body expects to receive it and functions in a certain way to process them for your organs. By "tricking" your body with these you set a chain of events that if consumed enough of often that when you consume real sugar it doesn't process it for use but turns around and starts to store it for later consumption by your body. There is nothing wrong with eating real sugar, but it's like anything else you eat or take in, moderation. Moderation is the key. If your active or recently were and are drained by all means take in a little to help brain function and organ function. But to be inactive or "just because" and to I take a soda or large body of energy or performance drinks when not needed is when the issue arises for normal sugar intake. Again with both sugar and artificial sweeteners it come down to moderation and when called for.
«1

Replies

  • jwhoblit
    jwhoblit Posts: 7 Member
    Options
    Won't argue with the mercola article. Appreciate the article link. Wasn't trying to quote him. But there has been more studies than listed. Some done by the one link by Washington univeristy, another by Yale, another by Harvard health, another by Purdue university, Forbes has a great one that talks to several outside studies. So with that I'd say it's a bit more than just housewives, although I love the comment and agree with a lot of them that is the case.
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,728 Member
    Options
    It's NOT interesting, and there isn't anything more behind it. certainly not anything sinister.
  • cerise_noir
    cerise_noir Posts: 5,468 Member
    Options
    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. ;)
  • RuNaRoUnDaFiEld
    RuNaRoUnDaFiEld Posts: 5,864 Member
    Options
    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. ;)

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