74 replies to this topic

[DAMI]

Timar, the sources you are citing on highGi carbs and diabetes risk are observational studies. Dont you think that people who eat white bread and sugar lead generally less healthy life styles (less vegetables, exercise etc.) than those who consume whole grains?
Timar, the sources you are citing on highGi carbs and diabetes risk are observational studies. Dont you think that people who eat white bread and sugar lead generally less healthy life styles (less vegetables, exercise etc.) than those who consume whole grains?

[timar]

Timar, the sources you are citing on highGi carbs and diabetes risk are observational studies. Dont you think that people who eat white bread and sugar lead generally less healthy life styles (less vegetables, exercise etc.) than those who consume whole grains?

 

Sure they are. What else do you expect? Randomized controlled trials putting people on an experimental crap diet for years in order to see how long it takes until they become diabetic!? Epidemiological studies are all we will ever have regarding the etiology of such diseases in humans, for obvious reasons. Of course they are confounded the way you suggest but we can statistically control for such confounding factors (which doesn't eliminate all potential counfounding but can at least greatly reduce it). Morover, we can combine the evidence from such observational studies with evidence from animal studies and thereby show that certain dietary factors not only correlate with disease but are most probably causative. If you dig around at Pubmed you will find several studies showing that feeding a diet high in refined carbohydrates can indeed induce metabolic syndrome in rats.
 

Edited by timar, 25 August 2014 - 05:55 PM.

[Proudmoore]

I vote xylitol.
- Doesn't trigger insulin (not sure if it can still cause insulin resistance like fructose which also doesnt trigger insulin)
- Great for your teeth.
- Sweeter than sugar (40% of the calories)
- Can cause a little gas until you adjust to it

 I would join the Xylitol team!

[timar]

Another reason for me to use xylitol is this intriguing study from 2005, showing anti-AGE effects of xylitol in healthy, aged rats:

 

Gerontology. 2005 May-Jun;51(3):166-9.

Effects of a long-term dietary xylitol supplementation on collagen content and fluorescence of the skin in aged rats.

Mattila PT¹, Pelkonen P, Knuuttila ML.

 

BACKGROUND:

Dietary xylitol has been shown to increase the amounts of newly synthesized collagen, and to decrease fluorescence of the collagenase-soluble fraction in the skin of both healthy and diabetic rats. As in diabetic rats, a decreased rate of collagen synthesis and increased collagen fluorescence has also been detected in the skin of aged rats. We hypothesize that dietary xylitol supplementation may protect against these changes during aging.

OBJECTIVE:

The purpose of the present study was to investigate whether a long-term dietary supplementation can protect against the decrease in the amounts of newly synthesized collagen, and against the increase in fluorescence in the collagenase-soluble fraction in the skin of aged rats.

METHODS:

Twenty-four male Sprague-Dawley rats were used in the study. After weaning, the rats were divided into 2 groups of 12 animals. The rats in the control group were fed a basal RM1 diet, while the rats in the experimental group were fed the same diet supplemented with 10% xylitol. After 20 months, the rats were killed and pieces of skin from their dorsal areas were excised. The thickness of the samples was measured with a micrometer screw gauge. The collagen contents of rat skin were measured as hydroxyproline, and glycosylation as fluorescent intensity of collagen. Statistical significances of the differences between the groups were determined using the unpaired t test.

RESULTS:

No general side effects were detected in the rats during the experimental period. The skin of the xylitol-fed rats was a little thicker than that of the control rats. The hydroxyproline content of the acid-soluble fraction was significantly greater in the xylitol group as compared to the controls. However, there were no significant differences in the hydroxyproline content of the collagenase-soluble fraction between the groups. The fluorescence of the collagenase-soluble fraction was significantly smaller in the xylitol-fed aged rats than in the aged rats fed the basal diet.

CONCLUSIONS:

The results of this study indicate that xylitol caused an increase in the amount of newly synthesized collagen and a decrease in collagen fluorescence in the skin of aged rats.

→ source (external link)

 

Note that these were healthy rats eating healthy, "whole grain" RM1 rodent chow ad libitum - either supplemented with 10% xylitol or not. They didn't give xylitol to diabetic rats or compare it to a diet containing 10% sucrose or another unhealthy diet!

Edited by timar, 26 August 2014 - 10:19 AM.

[nupi]

Interesting but 10% is a LOT

[Werper]

I stumbled up on this doing a quick google search, probably written by the sugar industry, however...

 

 

http://www.thehealth...acked-up-to-be/

[niner]

I stumbled up on this doing a quick google search, probably written by the sugar industry, however...

 

http://www.thehealth...acked-up-to-be/

 

References in the blog posting point back to Naturalnews, an unreliable information source.  Their main concern is the historical xylitol production method that involves catalytic hydrogenation.  These days, production appears to be moving toward fermentation approaches.  The concerns don't seem to be warranted, imho.  Another avenue of xylitol fear-mongering concerns the feedstock.  Sellers of birch bark xylitol have made false claims about the safety of corn cob sourced xylitol.  It's highly unlikely that there's any difference, other than cost.

[Brett Black]

I stumbled up on this doing a quick google search, probably written by the sugar industry, however...

http://www.thehealth...acked-up-to-be/

References in the blog posting point back to Naturalnews, an unreliable information source. Their main concern is the historical xylitol production method that involves catalytic hydrogenation. These days, production appears to be moving toward fermentation approaches. The concerns don't seem to be warranted, imho. Another avenue of xylitol fear-mongering concerns the feedstock. Sellers of birch bark xylitol have made false claims about the safety of corn cob sourced xylitol. It's highly unlikely that there's any difference, other than cost.

My understanding is that a lot(most, all?) of corn-derived xylitol originates from China. Given the known history of adulterated and toxic food and other products (including powdered baby formula) from China, I try to avoid using any food, food-contacting, supplement, cosmetic or medicinal products from China(or in fact any developing country.) It seems like xylitol, a plain white powder/granules, would be particularly easily adulterated/bulked/cut.

Edited by Brett Black, 31 August 2014 - 05:38 AM.

[timar]

Interesting but 10% is a LOT

 

Not if you consider that the avarage Western person gets between 15 and 20%(!) of his or her daily calories from added sugar. Think about the potential public health benefits of replacing even a fraction of that with xylitol or other polyols (but of course that won't happen since we as a society have choosen to heavily subsidize the most unhealthy sources of empty calories).

 

I stumbled up on this doing a quick google search, probably written by the sugar industry, however...

 

 

http://www.thehealth...acked-up-to-be/

 

Not by the sugar industry (which probably hasn't even noticed its existence) but rather by someone uncritically parroting random health-related internet paranoia spread by websites like Naturalnews. It is hard to take anything this article brings up seriously. It "contributes to a gut imbalance" because it acts as a prebiotic, fermentable fiber? It is toxic to dogs? The rat LD50 is 16 g/kg when given intravenously? So what!? The most ridiculous part is the assertion that there would be no long-term safety data for xylitol. Of course there is - plenty of it. What do you think the FDA based its assessment on? (Well, of course many poeple reading Naturalnews & co are already sold to the idea that the FDA is carrying out the Grand Satanic Illuminati Communist conspiracy scheme to keep Americans sick and dumb anyway).

 

My understanding is that a lot(most, all?) of corn-derived xylitol originates from China. Given the known history of adulterated and toxic food and other products (including powdered baby formula) from China, I try to avoid using any food, food-contacting, supplement, cosmetic or medicinal products from China(or in fact any developing country.) It seems like xylitol, a plain white powder/granules, would be particularly easily adulterated/bulked/cut.

 

Those concerns seem overstated to me. Reputable importers and sellers of Chinese xylitol of course do not only basic quality checks (which can easily detect any adulterated or bulked xylitol) but also chemical analysis for contaminants. AFAIK there have been no issues with contaminated Chinese xylitol so far. The Chinese corn-based xylitol I have tried was indiscernible from Finish xylitol made from birch wood (but of course I got if from a reputable seller providing an analysis certificate and guaranteeing a purity of >99%).

 

Edited by timar, 31 August 2014 - 09:37 AM.

[Brett Black]

My understanding is that a lot(most, all?) of corn-derived xylitol originates from China. Given the known history of adulterated and toxic food and other products (including powdered baby formula) from China, I try to avoid using any food, food-contacting, supplement, cosmetic or medicinal products from China(or in fact any developing country.) It seems like xylitol, a plain white powder/granules, would be particularly easily adulterated/bulked/cut.

Those concerns seem overstated to me. Reputable importers and sellers of Chinese xylitol of course do not only basic quality checks (which can easily detect any adulterated or bulked xylitol) but also chemical analysis for contaminants. AFAIK there have been no issues with contaminated Chinese xylitol so far. The Chinese corn-based xylitol I have tried was indiscernible from Finish xylitol made from birch wood (but of course I got if from a reputable seller providing an analysis certificate and guaranteeing a purity of >99%).

I'm impressed that you went to those lengths. I doubt many people are going to get an analysis certificate and purity guarantee before buying xylitol or other food products from China or other developing countries. Did you make sure the testing was done by an independent and certified lab? Did they guarantee that each and every batch they receive is and will continue to be tested? Even with the certificate and guarantee I'd still personally feel more trusting of xylitol or other food products that originated from wealthy developed countries. I'd just stick with the Finnish xylitol.

[timar]

I'm impressed that you went to those lengths. I doubt many people are going to get an analysis certificate and purity guarantee before buying xylitol or other food products from China or other developing countries. Did you make sure the testing was done by an independent and certified lab? Did they guarantee that each and every batch they receive is and will continue to be tested? Even with the certificate and guarantee I'd still personally feel more trusting of xylitol or other food products that originated from wealthy developed countries. I'd just stick with the Finnish xylitol.

 

 

What lengths? I simply put my order on the largest, most popular German webshop for xylitol. To be perfectly honst, I didn't even look at the certificate - it was sufficient for me that they provide one. I wouldn't buy xylitol from China too, but almost any Chinese xylitol is sold by domestic sellers who are lliable for any potential harm to their customers if they sell adulterated products, so it is in their own vital interest to do batch testing. But of course you can always prefer Finish xylitol and have your peace of mind. The surcharge isn't that much.
 

Edited by timar, 01 September 2014 - 07:33 AM.

[DAMI]

Timar, could you link to these animal studies that show how unrefined carbs protect against disease compared to refined ones? what is your take on this http://www.ncbi.nlm....ubmed/21733309/

[Mind]

I have often thought that some of the artificial sweeteners would not be harmful in people who are at a healthy weight. Subjectively, it seems the people who suffer negative health consequences from artificial sweeteners are already obese and unhealthy. They go for the "diet" or "zero calorie" options, but then still eat a nutrient-poor high-calorie, high-sugar diet, and remain sedentary.

 

A large well-controlled study dispels with this idea.

 

Cancer incidence was higher in people who consumed artificial sweeteners. The association was strongest with Aspartame and Acesulfame-K usage. Hazard ratio up to 1.15. Not huge, but statistically significant.

 

Surprisingly, sucralose showed better results and was minimally "protective" against most cancers. Hazard ratios as low as 0.87

 

So for the most-used artificial sweeteners, sucralose is the safest and might even be slightly beneficial in relation to cancer (but might cause other health issues).

 

I wish they had included other sweeteners, but the usage among the study participants was very low.

 

If I have to use an artificial sweetener, I would still go with the sugar alcohols as my top option. Stevia is not too bad. Saccharine has a very long history of safe usage. I would not be too afraid of sucralose considering this recent study.

 

At my age, and considering this study, it is time to start minimizing my exposure to aspartame and acesulfame-K.

[Mind]

Say it ain't so, erythritol is associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular problems including thrombosis. Some of my favorite zero calorie drinks are flavored with erythritol.

 

It is just one study, not RCT, but something to consider.

 

For non-sugar, low or zero calorie sweeteners, I guess stevia and xylitol are probably at the top. Sucralose and saccharin don't seem too bad.

[zorba990]

Say it ain't so, erythritol is associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular problems including thrombosis. Some of my favorite zero calorie drinks are flavored with erythritol.

It is just one study, not RCT, but something to consider.

For non-sugar, low or zero calorie sweeteners, I guess stevia and xylitol are probably at the top. Sucralose and saccharin don't seem too bad.

That premise should be easily verifiable with a proper animal study. Until then, given the timeframe it tracks, it seems more sensationalist and look here and not over there (at that mRNA thing causing these symptoms).