Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Diabetics question.
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="tRidiot" data-source="post: 3123218" data-attributes="member: 9374"><p>So then it's actually the opposite of what you stated, or completely neutral. So... what you said above was based on - what? Nothing? Hearsay? Conjecture? Internet myths? All of the above has been my experience from those who make such claims, but have zero science to back up what they're repeating. Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing anyone, it's really easy to listen to someone who knows a lot of big words talk about how things work, but when you actually break down the biochemistry find out they don't understand the underlying processes at all. In fact, from what you're saying, and from Annie's experiences she listed above, as well, it is the exact opposite of what you stated initially - it does <strong>NOT </strong>cause a drop in blood sugar, which indicates it <strong>DOESN'T </strong>cause additional insulin secretion.</p><p></p><p>This IS the pattern of internet myths. Make a claim with no foundation in science or research, repeat it ad nauseum, blame big corporations and mainstream medicine for trying to "hide the truth" in order to actually make people sicker, so they can purportedly make more money off of them. Jenny McCarthy is a perfect example.</p><p></p><p>It's laughable, but sad at the same time. I see the same myths perpetuated here year after year in the flu shot threads and various other situations.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That's not what causes insulin resistance.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Absolutely agree.</p><p></p><p>As for </p><p></p><p></p><p>Looking at the physical chemical structures of the varying sweeteners and regularly-occurring natural sweeteners, the differences are so obvious as to be laughable. Conversely, sucralose itself is actually derived from sugar, changing only a couple of Cl- ions for hydroxyl groups. While this seems a minor change, it actually makes it significantly more potent subjectively, but 85% of it is excreted unchanged in feces, and dozens and dozens and dozens of repeated and repeatable studies have found absolute ZERO adverse effects in humans and animal studies, some of which fed animals up to a weight equivalent that would have an average human male consuming 1000 lbs per day of the stuff.</p><p></p><p><strong><u>Chemophobes</u></strong> like Dr. Mercola on the Dr. Oz show (Oz himself is a sellout and fraud) make sensational claims like "sucralose is more like DDT than sugar". Of course, looking at their chemical structures, <strong>NOTHING</strong> could be further from the truth, and looking at his webpage to try to determine where he comes up with this, all of his claims are completely lacking any studies, sources or citations - <u><strong>with the exception of linking back to his own website 14 times.</strong></u> It appears this claim he made up and completely pulled out of his ass. Some credible source, huh? But, but, but... he was on TV... he was on... <strong>DR. OZ!</strong> Hmmm... you think they might be planning on some sensational claims because of ratings instead of actual factual information that is boring? Hmmm... maybe.</p><p></p><p>And the internet (and TV) is replete with massive anecdotal BS that appeals to fear and emotion and ignorance of science, relying on little to no actual repeatable and published research.</p><p></p><p>I could go on and on... but suffice it to say, we all know we're not going to change the minds of those who are buying into the conspiracy theories and such, but do your own research. In five minutes online, you can find dozens upon dozens of published studies with massive troves of data, all public. And you can find dozens of blogs where people make sensational claims but have zero evidence to it up.</p><p></p><p>Is a natural, healthy and diverse diet without artificial preservatives and such preferable and encouraged? Sure, nothing wrong with that. But <strong>chemophobia </strong>doesn't do anyone any good.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="tRidiot, post: 3123218, member: 9374"] So then it's actually the opposite of what you stated, or completely neutral. So... what you said above was based on - what? Nothing? Hearsay? Conjecture? Internet myths? All of the above has been my experience from those who make such claims, but have zero science to back up what they're repeating. Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing anyone, it's really easy to listen to someone who knows a lot of big words talk about how things work, but when you actually break down the biochemistry find out they don't understand the underlying processes at all. In fact, from what you're saying, and from Annie's experiences she listed above, as well, it is the exact opposite of what you stated initially - it does [B]NOT [/B]cause a drop in blood sugar, which indicates it [B]DOESN'T [/B]cause additional insulin secretion. This IS the pattern of internet myths. Make a claim with no foundation in science or research, repeat it ad nauseum, blame big corporations and mainstream medicine for trying to "hide the truth" in order to actually make people sicker, so they can purportedly make more money off of them. Jenny McCarthy is a perfect example. It's laughable, but sad at the same time. I see the same myths perpetuated here year after year in the flu shot threads and various other situations. That's not what causes insulin resistance. Absolutely agree. As for Looking at the physical chemical structures of the varying sweeteners and regularly-occurring natural sweeteners, the differences are so obvious as to be laughable. Conversely, sucralose itself is actually derived from sugar, changing only a couple of Cl- ions for hydroxyl groups. While this seems a minor change, it actually makes it significantly more potent subjectively, but 85% of it is excreted unchanged in feces, and dozens and dozens and dozens of repeated and repeatable studies have found absolute ZERO adverse effects in humans and animal studies, some of which fed animals up to a weight equivalent that would have an average human male consuming 1000 lbs per day of the stuff. [B][U]Chemophobes[/U][/B] like Dr. Mercola on the Dr. Oz show (Oz himself is a sellout and fraud) make sensational claims like "sucralose is more like DDT than sugar". Of course, looking at their chemical structures, [B]NOTHING[/B] could be further from the truth, and looking at his webpage to try to determine where he comes up with this, all of his claims are completely lacking any studies, sources or citations - [U][B]with the exception of linking back to his own website 14 times.[/B][/U] It appears this claim he made up and completely pulled out of his ass. Some credible source, huh? But, but, but... he was on TV... he was on... [B]DR. OZ![/B] Hmmm... you think they might be planning on some sensational claims because of ratings instead of actual factual information that is boring? Hmmm... maybe. And the internet (and TV) is replete with massive anecdotal BS that appeals to fear and emotion and ignorance of science, relying on little to no actual repeatable and published research. I could go on and on... but suffice it to say, we all know we're not going to change the minds of those who are buying into the conspiracy theories and such, but do your own research. In five minutes online, you can find dozens upon dozens of published studies with massive troves of data, all public. And you can find dozens of blogs where people make sensational claims but have zero evidence to it up. Is a natural, healthy and diverse diet without artificial preservatives and such preferable and encouraged? Sure, nothing wrong with that. But [B]chemophobia [/B]doesn't do anyone any good. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Diabetics question.
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom