74 replies to this topic

[blood]

I use Xylitol in my coffee. I don't have a dog, no no worries about it getting into the pantry.

[eon]

do you have the corn or birch derived xylitol?

[nupi]

do you have the corn or birch derived xylitol?

Corn probably (I use this http://www.iherb.com...-1-lb-454-g/321).

Chemicals are chemicals, as long as it is reasonably pure there will not be any difference.

Edited by nupi, 14 January 2014 - 09:44 AM.

[eon]

yep that's corn. birch derived xylitol will say so that it is since it cost more. you buy from iherb? how's their prices? I like Dr. Vita better but they have raised their prices and no more free shipping with any amount of order. They raised their "free shipping" price only if you order over $39 at first, then more recently over $49. Oh well. Time to shop around...

Edited by eon, 14 January 2014 - 10:48 AM.

[blood]

Dr VIta prices seem a bit better than iherb's.

[nupi]

IHerb's postal fees for shipping abroad are unbeatable - if I was in the US, I would simply shop on Amazon

[eon]

every sells on amazon, even dr. vita. I think iherb also sells through it.

[eon]

I'm not familiar with how diabetes is acquired other than hereditary. But would consuming tons of sweets lead to diabetes? What if my main source of sweetener is 100% sugar free such as xylitol? Would I be immune to diabetes other than "IF" I was predisposed to it by way of hereditary?

Would the sweetener "glucose" (aka dextrose) be a culprit in making one become diabetic? I would not think so because dextrose are used as medicines, correct? Those things you see in the hospital that have hose on it and is needled into the patient's arm is dextrose.

Edited by eon, 26 January 2014 - 09:53 AM.

[timar]

eon, you could at least read the basic information Wikipedia provides on a subject before asking such superfluous questions!

Of course there is a hereditary component to diabetes, as there is to most chronic diseases. Does that mean that lifestyle is irrelevant? Of course not! Please try to use your brain a little more. It's (almost) never about the genes or about the lifestyle alone, but about their interaction. All the information encoded in your genes is nothing but meaningless junk data if not understood in in the context of both the historic environment that shaped the genome and the actual environment in which your genes are expressed.

So, yes, according to overwhelming scientific evidence you will most certainly decrease your risk of acquiring diabetes if you minimize your sugar consumption or substitute low- or non-caloric sweeterners such as xylitol for sugar.

Edited by timar, 26 January 2014 - 12:49 PM.

[JohnD60]

I'm not familiar with how diabetes is acquired other than hereditary. But would consuming tons of sweets lead to diabetes? What if my main source of sweetener is 100% sugar free such as xylitol? Would I be immune to diabetes other than "IF" I was predisposed to it by way of hereditary?

Would the sweetener "glucose" (aka dextrose) be a culprit in making one become diabetic? I would not think so because dextrose are used as medicines, correct? Those things you see in the hospital that have hose on it and is needled into the patient's arm is dextrose.

research it for a full answer, it is actually complicated and controversial, and somewhat of a prerequisite for any diet discussion. In short, it is widely accepted that type 2 diabetes is acquired by chronic over consumption of high glycemic carbohydrate based foods.

I would be interested in trying some food made with trehalouse. But almost none seem to exist. I think the major roadblock to this is that trehalouse is relatively expensive. I made some ice cream using trehalouse once, it was a lot of work, it wasn't very good.

Everything I know about Stevia, I learned from watching Breaking Bad.

Edited by JohnD60, 27 January 2014 - 07:16 PM.

[totflare]

I'm not familiar with how diabetes is acquired other than hereditary. But would consuming tons of sweets lead to diabetes? What if my main source of sweetener is 100% sugar free such as xylitol? Would I be immune to diabetes other than "IF" I was predisposed to it by way of hereditary?

Would the sweetener "glucose" (aka dextrose) be a culprit in making one become diabetic? I would not think so because dextrose are used as medicines, correct? Those things you see in the hospital that have hose on it and is needled into the patient's arm is dextrose.

In short, it is widely accepted that type 2 diabetes is acquired by chronic over consumption of high glycemic carbohydrate based foods.

This is bullshit. This kind of fear mongering is worse than any food you put into your body. Yeah I guess if a person's blood sugar is already out of whack eating too many carbs will make things worse. But there is no proof that high glycemic carbohydrates actually cause the pancreas to start malfunctioning.

Plus sugar isn't even high glycemic in the first place. Most starch is. And what is the entire world living on? Starch. My advice is to just eat some real sugar and stay away from sweeteners.

[eon]

I knew of a family of diabetics, they were all obese and or out of shape yet the food they eat are starchy foods (pizzas and subs), and of course diet sodas! They would not drink regular sodas because the excuse was they are diabetic so they always opt for diet sodas. I told them it is no better.

What do you consider "real sugar" vs. sweeteners? Glucose is natural, does it mean it is "real sugar"? Xylitol is natural (?) since it is from either birch tree or corn derived, but it's not sugar but a sweetener.

Could it be that obese people are diabetic because of the foods they consume, and the skinny people who are diabetic is because of hereditary? I haven't met a skinny diabetic person though so that might say something about diet depending on type of diabetes.

Edited by eon, 28 January 2014 - 04:23 AM.

[timar]

This is bullshit. This kind of fear mongering is worse than any food you put into your body. Yeah I guess if a person's blood sugar is already out of whack eating too many carbs will make things worse. But there is no proof that high glycemic carbohydrates actually cause the pancreas to start malfunctioning.

Plus sugar isn't even high glycemic in the first place. Most starch is. And what is the entire world living on? Starch. My advice is to just eat some real sugar and stay away from sweeteners.

Excuse me, but it is you who is writing bullshit. The evidence that overconsumption of high glycemic carbs, fructose and animal protein is contributing to the epidemic of metabolic syndrome and consequentially type II diabetes is overwhelming.

Why do you think that blood sugar levels are already "out of whack" for so many people in Western societies? Diabetes is not a binary condition where you are either perfectly healthy or your pancreas suddenly stops working properly; it is gradually acquired. Every full-blown type II diabetes is preceded by a long period of increasing insulin resistance.

This is not "fear mongering". It is solid scientific evidence. Your assertion that there is "no proof that high glycemic carbohydrates actually cause the pancreas to start malfunctioning" is ridiculous given all the evidence to the contrary.

Remember that we deal with non-linear dose-response curves. Nobody gets hurt by occasionally consuming a modest amount of high glycemic carbs, if they come accompanied by fiber and phytochemicals (like in the traditional Eastern and Mediterranian diets). If you regularly consume bread and pastries made from refined flour, sugary beverages, sweets and red meat (like most poeple in Western societies do) you are definitely increasing your risk for acquiring type II diabetes. Period.

Edited by timar, 28 January 2014 - 10:17 AM.

[Sinter]

Nothing works better than miraculin (from the miracle berry).

Check it out on wiki. It will blow your mind if you haven't tried it.

[timar]

Well, it works only in combination with acids. It makes the acid taste incredibly sweet.

The problem is: the effect is so strong that it lasts for up to one hour. So you can have that sweet lemon juice, but your salad will taste sweet as well.

Besides, miraculin is horrendously expensive. A nice party gag but not a practical sweetener...

[PuertoO]

One study conducted in a metabolic ward where obese persons (n=8) were not subject to food restriction found that covert replacement of sugars with aspartame without notifying the subjects of anything resulted in 25% less energy intake (number is more complimenting than practical usage, since calories were removed to accommodate the inclusion of aspartame). This study also noted a nonsignificant increase in food consumption after aspartame was discontinued, and sucrose reinstated.

[timar]

Here's a relatively recent review on polyols, particularly xylitol. It is centered on its role in caries prevention as most research has been done on that subject but it also briefly summarizes other potential health benefits (references in the paper; emphasis mine):

– Non- and anticariogenic sweetener. Latest comprehensive literature reviews: ref. 3, 4
– Alleviation of xerostomia; generally recognized owing to saliva stimulation
– Decrease of Pseudomonas-based biofilm (with lactoferrin) [5]
– Prolonging of chlorhexidine effect on S. mutans [6]
– As a sweetener in diabetic diets; generally recognized [7–9]
– Energy source in infusion therapy [7]. Extensive research and application history in Germany
– Promotion of endogenous fat mobilization and oxidation [7]
– Studies as an antiulcer agent [10]
– Resuscitation from diabetic coma (early Japanese and German observations)
– Prevention of adrenocortical suppression during steroid therapy [7]
– Increase in auditory threshold values in patients with Ménière’s disease [11, 12]
– Therapy of adenosine deaminase deficiency in a form of adult myopathy [13]
– Therapy of glucose 6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency in red blood cells (anemia) [14]
– Restoration of heart muscle adenine nucleotide levels [15]
– Increase in the levels of retinol-binding proteins [7]
– Reduction in the incidence of liver and bile duct disorders [7]; older literature shown in ref. 16
– Stimulation of the mixed-function oxidase system [17]
– Treatment of ketonemia [18]
– Prevention of experimental osteoporosis; improvement of collagen and bone properties. Reviewed in ref. 19
– Prevention of some diabetic complications. Rat studies of Knuuttila, Svanberg, Mattila, and others reviewed in ref. 19
– As a protein-sparing and thiamine-sparing agent; stimulation of enteral vitamin synthesis [7, 20]
– Preservation of red blood cells [21]
– Amelioration of drug-induced hemolysis [22]
– Prevention of acute middle ear infections in infants [23–25]
– Antibacterial effect on pneumococcal nasal colonization [26]
– Alleviation of cystic fibrosis condition [27]
– Stimulation of cytokine induction (rat bladder cell lines) [28]
– Reconstitution of integral membrane transport proteins [29]
– Skin care with farnesol (atopic dry skin; Staphylococcus aureus) [30]
– Prevention of cardiac arrhythmias [31]
– Stimulation of pancreatic enzyme secretion [32]
– Anti-tumor effect (increasing host cell metabolism) [33]
– Beneficial effect on the growth of broiler chicks [34]
– Prevention of phenylenediamine-induced hepatotoxicity [35]
– Wound care (inhibition of wound biofilm formation) [36]
– Inhibition of fish oil oxidation (fishy flavor suppression) [37]
– Inhibition of food spoilage micro-organisms [38]
– As a sanitizer (food safety; kitchen hygiene; with free radicals) [39]
– Removal of KL-6 mucin (around cell surface; carcinomas) [40]
– Prevention of cattle ketosis; improvement of udder health [41–47]; lowering of piglet mortality [41, 48, 49]

That's for xylitol. Quite an impressive list, isn't it? Erythritol however may share many of those benefits and provide others on its own (i.e. being essentially non-caloric). Here is an intriguing paper on the antioxidant properties of erythritol and other polyols. Erythritol had the strongest HO°-scavaging antoxidant activity of all polyols in vitro, followed by xylitol (the lower the molar mass of the polyol the higher the antioxidant activity):

Objective: Hyperglycemia, oxidative stress, and the onset and progression of diabetic complications are strongly linked. Reduction of oxidative stress could be of utmost importance in the long-term treatment of diabetic patients. The chronic nature of the disease calls for a mode of antioxidant intake that can be sustained easily, e.g., by the diet. Erythritol, a simple polyol, could be such a compound. It is orally available, well tolerated, and its chemical structure resembles that of mannitol, a well-known hydroxyl radical (HO) scavenger.
Methods: We studied the antioxidant properties of erythritol in vitro and subsequently determined its antioxidant activity and its vasoprotective effect in the streptozotocin diabetic rat.
Results: Erythritol was shown to be an excellent HO radical scavenger and an inhibitor of 2,20-azo-bis-2-amidinopropane dihydrochloride–induced hemolysis but inert toward superoxide radicals. High-performance liquid chromatographic and electron spin resonance spectroscopy studies showed that the reaction of erythritol with hydroxyl radicals resulted in the formation of erythrose and erythrulose by abstraction of a carbon-bound hydrogen atom. In the streptozotocin diabetic rat, erythritol displayed an endothelium-protective effect and, in accordance with the in vitro experiments, erythrose was found in the urine of erythritol-consuming rats.
Conclusion: Erythritol acts as an antioxidant in vivo and may help protect against hyperglycemia-induced vascular damage.

Edited by timar, 08 February 2014 - 12:32 AM.

[timar]

One more reason to cut back on added sugar whenever possible. This has been published just a few days ago.

Added Sugar Intake and Cardiovascular Diseases Mortality Among US Adults
Quanhe Yang, PhD¹; Zefeng Zhang, MD, PhD¹; Edward W. Gregg, PhD²; W. Dana Flanders, MD, ScD³; Robert Merritt, MA¹; Frank B. Hu, MD, PhD^4,5


Importance Epidemiologic studies have suggested that higher intake of added sugar is associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors. Few prospective studies have examined the association of added sugar intake with CVD mortality.
Objective To examine time trends of added sugar consumption as percentage of daily calories in the United States and investigate the association of this consumption with CVD mortality.
Design, Setting, and Participants National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES, 1988-1994 [III], 1999-2004, and 2005-2010 [n = 31 147]) for the time trend analysis and NHANES III Linked Mortality cohort (1988-2006 [n = 11 733]), a prospective cohort of a nationally representative sample of US adults for the association study.
Main Outcomes and Measures Cardiovascular disease mortality.
Results Among US adults, the adjusted mean percentage of daily calories from added sugar increased from 15.7% (95% CI, 15.0%-16.4%) in 1988-1994 to 16.8% (16.0%-17.7%; P = .02) in 1999-2004 and decreased to 14.9% (14.2%-15.5%; P  < .001) in 2005-2010. Most adults consumed 10% or more of calories from added sugar (71.4%) and approximately 10% consumed 25% or more in 2005-2010. During a median follow-up period of 14.6 years, we documented 831 CVD deaths during 163 039 person-years. Age-, sex-, and race/ethnicity–adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) of CVD mortality across quintiles of the percentage of daily calories consumed from added sugar were 1.00 (reference), 1.09 (95% CI, 1.05-1.13), 1.23 (1.12-1.34), 1.49 (1.24-1.78), and 2.43 (1.63-3.62; P < .001), respectively. After additional adjustment for sociodemographic, behavioral, and clinical characteristics, HRs were 1.00 (reference), 1.07 (1.02-1.12), 1.18 (1.06-1.31), 1.38 (1.11-1.70), and 2.03 (1.26-3.27; P = .004), respectively. Adjusted HRs were 1.30 (95% CI, 1.09-1.55) and 2.75 (1.40-5.42; P  = .004), respectively, comparing participants who consumed 10.0% to 24.9% or 25.0% or more calories from added sugar with those who consumed less than 10.0% of calories from added sugar. These findings were largely consistent across age group, sex, race/ethnicity (except among non-Hispanic blacks), educational attainment, physical activity, health eating index, and body mass index.
Conclusions and Relevance Most US adults consume more added sugar than is recommended for a healthy diet. We observed a significant relationship between added sugar consumption and increased risk for CVD mortality.

There is a significant increase in mortality risk in the second quintile, which suggest that even those in the upper range of the first quintile already consume too much sugar for their own good. Mind you, we are not talking about the risk of tooth decay here...

Seems like sugar is definitely out of contention for the healthiest sweetener

Edited by timar, 08 February 2014 - 08:55 AM.

[eon]

if diabetes is more likely to do with genes or being predisposed of acquiring the disease, would sweets not be the culprit no? I know of people who eats too much sugars but probably will never become diabetic than those who were "destined" to become. Maybe? Who knows?

 

I knew a guy whose mother passed away from cancer, he admitted to me that he too will likely meet the same fate. Maybe he was being negative? He didn't tell me he had anything but the way he sounded as if he'd rather keep it quiet. So genes or family history do play a role here?

Edited by eon, 14 May 2014 - 09:01 AM.

[gamesguru]

Based on antioxidant capacity, dates and molasses are in a league of their own. And even though they're 80% sugar, dates won't cause diabetes or significantly worsen blood sugar levels, perhaps because like other plants, they contain pancreas-assisting phytonutrients, or they are otherwise low glycemic.

 

According to one source, the bigger risk factor for obese diabetics is consumption of red meat and especially fish, not fructose. He argues diabetics can safely indulge in fruits whenever and however they please, but animal products should be avoided because they appear to be pancreas-suppressing, via PPAR antagonism.

[eon]

including FISH? that's news. Curious if all people ate were "non-living" like fruits or veggies compared to living, breathing animals, what could be the outcome? 

[Phoenicis]

I agree with Timar and would also recommend erythritol, other interesting sweeteners are glycine and FOS.

[Duchykins]

I use coconut sugar. I rarely have reason to use sugar but when I do, it's the coconut. It's definitely not as "sweet" as other sugars, which is fine for me. I'm not fooled by the hype though, the claims made about its nutrient content are mostly blown way out of proportion, but I think that's a given with the advertising of most stuff. It's potassium content has some value though. Artificial sweeteners are a no-no in my house for more than one reason.

[Darryl]

Assuming one uses so little sweetener that the cost isn't prohibitive, glycine, equally sweet as sucrose, has many intriguing benefits.

[Duchykins]

I heard some of that, but I'm wary of using glycine in that manner because it behaves differently depending on what's going on with you glutamate and GABA at the time of ingestion.

[eon]

explain?

 

I heard some of that, but I'm wary of using glycine in that manner because it behaves differently depending on what's going on with you glutamate and GABA at the time of ingestion.

 

[Brett Black]

This is bullshit. This kind of fear mongering is worse than any food you put into your body. Yeah I guess if a person's blood sugar is already out of whack eating too many carbs will make things worse. But there is no proof that high glycemic carbohydrates actually cause the pancreas to start malfunctioning.

Plus sugar isn't even high glycemic in the first place. Most starch is. And what is the entire world living on? Starch. My advice is to just eat some real sugar and stay away from sweeteners.

Excuse me, but it is you who is writing bullshit. The evidence that overconsumption of high glycemic carbs, fructose and animal protein is contributing to the epidemic of metabolic syndrome and consequentially type II diabetes is overwhelming.

Why do you think that blood sugar levels are already "out of whack" for so many people in Western societies? Diabetes is not a binary condition where you are either perfectly healthy or your pancreas suddenly stops working properly; it is gradually acquired. Every full-blown type II diabetes is preceded by a long period of increasing insulin resistance.

This is not "fear mongering". It is solid scientific evidence. Your assertion that there is "no proof that high glycemic carbohydrates actually cause the pancreas to start malfunctioning" is ridiculous given all the evidence to the contrary.

Remember that we deal with non-linear dose-response curves. Nobody gets hurt by occasionally consuming a modest amount of high glycemic carbs, if they come accompanied by fiber and phytochemicals (like in the traditional Eastern and Mediterranian diets). If you regularly consume bread and pastries made from refined flour, sugary beverages, sweets and red meat (like most poeple in Western societies do) you are definitely increasing your risk for acquiring type II diabetes. Period.

A little organization known as the American Diabetes Foundation says it's a "myth" that sugar causes diabetes:
http://www.diabetes....d-desserts.html
http://www.diabetes....d-desserts.html

Edited by Brett Black, 24 August 2014 - 01:02 PM.

[timar]

So what? That's simply an argument from authority. The larger the organizations, the more conservative/dogmatic they tend to become and the more reluctant to accept new evidence, such as that refered to in my post. Note that I don't say that high-glycemic carbohydrates are the sole or even the main cause for the epidemy of type II diabetes in the Western World - sedentary lifestyle, excess calories, saturated fat and protein and a lack of protective phytonutrients are known and important factors. Yet there is mounting evidence - whether the ADF acknowledges this or not - that an excess of high GI refined carbs, particularly sugar, is also an important part of the puzzle.

Edited by timar, 24 August 2014 - 07:31 PM.

[niner]

According to one source, the bigger risk factor for obese diabetics is consumption of red meat and especially fish, not fructose.

 

One source (Michael Greger) who is a vegan ideologue and is happy to distort the science to make veganism look good, that is.

[eon]

Fish? Of all the meat that could be bad for you, how did fish come about? I thought fish is better than red meat. You saying chicken is better than fish?