PDA

View Full Version : Supplementation during fasting


Jeremy Shepard
04-27-2007, 09:41 AM
What opinions does everyone have on supplementation during the fasting period?

I would definitely keep all fat-soluble supplements with the meals, but what about others? B-Complex, Vitamin C, Individual AAs...

I would imagine it would be beneficial to not supplement anything that would up-regulate endogenous antioxidant enzymes during this time. But, just wondering if anyone had information I didn't regarding other items.

Garrett Smith
04-27-2007, 09:54 AM
The only supplement I'm taking during my fast days is one dropperful of Herbs Etc.'s chlorophyll, derived from urtica dioica. I'm also drinking ~64 oz. of herbal tea during the fast, so I'm getting something...

I figure, if the fasting from "food" (which is where we should be getting our nutrients from anyway) is beneficial, then eliminating supplements must have benefits in some way.

I'm assuming that during the research on IF that it was complete fasting, as in no supplements during the fast.

A less-than-24hr fast would still have people taking their supplements every day.

I like the $$ that this saves me on supplements...

Ron Nelson
04-27-2007, 11:02 AM
I stick with fish oil in the morning (that's not cheating is it?) and ZMA before bed. So far, so good.
I even fought off a cold. . .or maybe it was just exhaustion posing as a cold.

Bobby Spencer
04-27-2007, 01:26 PM
When fasting, I'll usually have 2-3 cups of coffee or some green tea thoughout the morning--No caffeine after 10:30 am or I will not sleep well. Usually this is liquid but sometimes with caffeine/green tea caps when rushed. If I feel like I must have my multi, I will take it with a tsp. of olive oil.(As per the advice I got here, taking the multi w/o some sort of food or fat leads to poor absorbtion.) I usually will take some ALCAR and that's about it. If going for detox, the caffeine combined with plenty of water during a fast will really do the trick. I usually fast on off days, but if I am working out on a fasting day I will have a small meal (1-2 blocks) about an hour before with some BCAAs and more ALCAR (1-2gm). I will have a small recovery meal w/5gm or CM afterward and then eat a huge meal about an hour afterward. Just before the big meal I will take some Glucosamine/Chondroitin, Digestive Enzymes, and the multi if I did not take it that morning. ZMA before bed, of course.

Garrett Smith
04-27-2007, 02:18 PM
Oh, I forgot--based on the Robb Wolf-slash-Lights Out! recommendation in the PMenu, I do still take a teaspoon of my calcium-magnesium-potassium-carbonate with ascorbic acid (combines in water to form the mineral ascorbates) before bed on my fasting days...

Stuart Mather
04-27-2007, 11:40 PM
I stick with fish oil in the morning (that's not cheating is it?) and ZMA before bed. So far, so good.
I even fought off a cold. . .or maybe it was just exhaustion posing as a cold.

Well strictly speaking fish oil has signifigant calories (as does any fat).
I suppose you just have to decide wether 'fasting' means 'no calories'.
And although not nearly as calorie dense as fish oil, even tea and coffee have some calories (5- 15, depending on how it is prepared).

Calorie free diet drinks or water are the only calorie free liquid or solid stuff you can consume if you are following a strict definition of fasting.

Garrett Smith
04-28-2007, 04:50 AM
Coffee and tea may still have a couple calories (I do both of mine with absolutely nothing added other than a few spices, mostly clove/nutmeg/cinnamon), and I'd much rather have those than artificially sweetened drinks...I am after health, after all.

The fish oil definitely isn't totally "fasting".

Pierre Auge
04-28-2007, 06:21 AM
what I've noticed is that if you are going to be very physically active during the fasting period a dose or two of fish oil will provide enough caloric content to help a person perform well...

I've also found that consuming fish oil during a fast will aid with fat adaptation but those are just my observations...

Mike ODonnell
04-28-2007, 08:43 AM
Won't taking fish oil when fasting/empty stomach part of the day tell the body to use the fat as a fuel source rather than inflammation control? I take mine at night with dinner.

Pierre Auge
04-28-2007, 09:34 AM
MOD thats what I'm saying!

Ron Nelson
04-28-2007, 04:37 PM
Won't taking fish oil when fasting/empty stomach part of the day tell the body to use the fat as a fuel source rather than inflammation control? I take mine at night with dinner.

I had read that as well and have started taking it after I break the fast.

Jeremy Shepard
04-28-2007, 05:10 PM
Yeah, I don't think I'd supplement n-3 FAs during the fast, unless I had increased my intake and was taking them with a meal, also. The metabolism of them is going to be affected by caloric and fat levels, anyway. I might could see some metabolic advantage to doubling intake and taking one serving during the fast, though. At least until body comp was respectable. This, of course, is all theoretical at this point, though.

I guess I'll play around with it. For example, I like a B complex in the mornings, or if I needed some tyrosine before workouts, etc.

Stuart Mather
04-29-2007, 05:18 AM
Coffee and tea may still have a couple calories (I do both of mine with absolutely nothing added other than a few spices, mostly clove/nutmeg/cinnamon), and I'd much rather have those than artificially sweetened drinks...I am after health, after all.



Ah the classic natural vs. unnatural chimera ;). Please don't take offense Garrett, but you'd seriously rather break your fast with a psychoactive addictive drug rather than not breaking it with a chemical (don't forget all food is 'chemicals' that many decades of well designed research (plenty of testimonial scuttlebutt to the contrary, but no actual research on humans) has repeatedly shown to be completely safe as a human foodstuff, simply because the drug is 'natural' ? I'm pretty sure both tea and coffee are a very recent addition to the human diet.

Garrett Smith
04-29-2007, 09:26 AM
Stuart,
Regarding coffee and herbal teas (I don't do black tea x/c at restaurants).

God, Nature, or some higher power put the caffeine, along with many other complicated synergistic compounds, in coffee. I don't consider it a "drug", in the isolated, purified sense. Coffee is different from isolated caffeine much as the vitamin C complex in fruit is very different from ascorbic acid. I do consider artificial sweeteners and ascorbic acid drugs in their own way, and I only utilize them in specific situations, if at all.

Man has created artificial sweeteners, for many reasons, most of which I don't agree with.

I know who I trust more, in terms of creating healthy foods. I also know who has a better track record and doesn't care about the financial gain involved.

Coffee and teas are relatively recent additions to the human diet. So are water filtering processes that are taking all of the minerals out of the drinking water. I don't think that drinking nearly mineral-free water is good for hydration, so I drink things that have minerals added back in, such as herbal tea.

I'm not really going to pursue an argument, debate, or discussion over artificial sweeteners. It's been done before, believe what you wish. I'll pass on consuming things that blatantly have "artificial" in the name, thank you very much.

Stuart Mather
04-29-2007, 04:37 PM
I know who I trust more, in terms of creating healthy foods. I also know who has a better track record and doesn't care about the financial gain involved.

This is what I find so fascinating about the 'natural' thing. Humans have been selectively breeding fruit and vegetables for sugar and starch for thousands of years, for (among other things) financial gain, so most available varieties bear little resemblance to the vegetable foods we spent the bulk of the Paleolithic consuming, yet people still try to argue that they are 'natural', and therefore by definition, healthy

Coffee and teas are relatively recent additions to the human diet. So are water filtering processes that are taking all of the minerals out of the drinking water. I don't think that drinking nearly mineral-free water is good for hydration, so I drink things that have minerals added back in, such as herbal tea.

I agree.


I'm not really going to pursue an argument, debate, or discussion over artificial sweeteners. It's been done before, believe what you wish. I'll passon consuming things that blatantly have "artificial" in the name, thank you very much.

Fair enough.

Garrett Smith
04-29-2007, 05:05 PM
Stuart,
I was thinking further about my dislike of artificial sweeters in particular and how that came about.

*I* am one of those testimonial, anecdotal scuttlebutts. After a history of using protein powders and making homemade "7UP" with aspartame as a teenager, I finally figured out that this "safe" sweetener was the cause of my short incapacitating headaches. The first "food intolerance" I ever identified in myself was this "safe" sweetener. Strike one.

Next, when I've been suggesting that patients stop using artificial sweeteners, several have said they've already stopped. Why? Because they had exactly the same symptom I did! Strike two.

Last, I had a patient come in and tell me she had a benign tumor on her pituitary. Come to find out, when I suggest she avoid artificial sweeteners, that she has a significant history of consuming 30 packets of Equal (aspartame) A DAY!!! She then tells me that she's reduced her intake significantly--down to several glasses of tea a day that each contain 2 packets of aspartame and one packet of sucralose. Wow...that's sweet tea! My only major suggestion to this woman, after spending two hours with her, was to reduce and eliminate the artificial sweeteners from her diet. She is now feeling quite a bit better and has gained more trust in my advice, even starting to reduce wheat. Talk about a drug effect, this woman was telling me that the stevia I provided her wasn't sweet enough. Seriously. Think her sense of taste was being affected? Strike three.

Black box results tells me that myself and some of my patients feel bad when they consume aspartame, and another one possibly developed a "brain" tumor from it AND she feels better when she doesn't consume it. Do I need more evidence on this particular subject? Should I wait for the corporations to do an honest study on their product? Should I assume that something drastically different happened during the Splenda/sucralose studies and approval process? I say NO.

Artificial sweeteners do not add nutrition to the diet. There is a significant possibility (not a possibility in my book) that they may cause neurotoxicity. IMO, there should be NO DOUBT AT ALL whether something is safe for consumption when we're talking about food.

You may not believe me or the multitude of people who state that they have witnessed these artificial sweeteners causing harm to them or their loved ones. Maybe you will. Bottom line, I don't trust the FDA or their approval process for "drugs" to put into foods, or anywhere else for that matter.

That's my deal on artificial sweeteners.

Steve Liberati
04-29-2007, 06:21 PM
Agreed, artificial sweetners are junk. Ever since I switched over to stevia (used moderately), headaches and stomach pains and gas are a thing of the past. Then again, too much of anything (including water) can be bad for you. Only drank 2-3 glasses of diet cola (and patrone) last night at a wedding party last night and what do you know...I've been fighting a headache all day long.

Stuart Mather
04-29-2007, 08:41 PM
Well you asked for it. Yeah I like to use the black box approach myself when there is no metabolic ward clinical research to go by. I must admit I've never used aspartame, nor could I ever I waste money on the heroically overpriced diet sodas which contain it. Besides aspartame is not a very stable molecule. It degrades readily in heat and over time. IMHO a complete waste of money.

So I have no informed opinion on it, although Mike Eades perspective on it seems pretty reasonable. He notes that there have been convincing studies done recently questioning its safety.

Not so either sucralose, saccharin, cyclamate, and acesulfame-K. I have personally used all four, in combination and separately, in moderation, every day for the past nearly five years following a VLC dietary approach, and not only have I never had any adverse effects, but my health and performance have continued to steadily improve. The last seventh months adding IF to the VLC has turned the improvement in new and interesting directions, but the AI use has never faltered. Much less give me any reason to doubt their safety. The only problem I have with stevia use is that in its refined form its toxicity is a serious concern. Not to mention that it is well documented to exert a direct stimulatory effect on pancreatic islet cells, regardless of dietary signals. Then there is the taste.....:confused: .

The interesting thing about people whingeing about the safety or otherwise of AI's is that I think it distracts us from the more important issue of paying attention to the macronutrient ratio which evolution best equipped humans for. Avoiding 'unnatural' sweeteners in the quest for health, but then continuing to indulge in (for instance) sweet fruit, even in so called moderation, because they are 'natural' is IMHO, pretty misguided.

Now, just so there's no confusion, let me point out that I am no carnivorous anti vegetation zealot. I eat copious quantities of green leafy vegetables every day, and a handful of berries most days, and when I can obtain actual wild berries (only mildly sweet, even though even these have probably cross pollinated with modern commercial super sweet varieties too ) I reflect on what the damage the human evolutionary proclivity for sweet and carbs in general (in combination with human ingenuity) has done to the health of this species.

So for every testimonial scuttlebutter such as yourself Garrett, bear in mind that there are probably several hundred who consume AI's (except aspartame - putting sucralose in the same boat as aspartame is about as silly as putting erythritol in the same boat as HFCS ;) ) regularly, with no adverse effects whatsoever. And hopefully your naturopathic process has clearly demonstrated to you the damage metabolic syndrome wreaks on human health, even when caused by the so called 'healthy' 'natural' foods like sweet fruit , starchy vegetables, and whole grains.

Steve Liberati
04-30-2007, 04:40 AM
I believe it is the long term effects from prolonged use of artificial sweetners that pose the greatest health concerns.

Steve Shafley
04-30-2007, 05:45 AM
A lot of good points come up in these kinds of discussion.

Stuart's comments in contrast to Garrett's comments provide an interesting contrast. I am generally not real keen on naturopathic doctors, since in many states you can declare yourself a naturapath with very little real training. I know Garrett's ND isn't something like that, but that's always something to consider. As a naturopath, also, his viewpoint is distinctly skewed...this isn't bad though, because multiple viewpoints and diversity really are the best way to learn and discuss matters. Stuart's comments occasionally run into the whole question of whether or not any particular study is any good or not. I've just found that so many scientific papers are so much crap, due to experimental design, the statistical analysis behind them, or even just the subject selection process. His viewpoint of a long time VLC practicioner has great value.

There are two distinct endpoints, with the "Everything is going to kill you" camp, to "Just eat it", with room for everyone in between.

Artificial sweetners are tricky. I do know folks who do not do well on aspartame. My wife feels a bit ill after drinking diet soda, for example. I am not one of them, and seem to tolerate them well. The question that should be asked is "Is sugar worse than aspartame?" After all, we have evolved to deal with sugars in our diet. Not in the huge amounts people eat today, but the body can deal with a bit of sugar.

Same with nightshades: If I noticed a problem upon consuming peppers and tomatoes, then I'd seriously consider curtailing their intake. Kelly Baggett (whom suffers from some kind of autoimmune problem) was really the first guy whom pointed me in that direction, shortly followed with Garrett's own suggestions regarding them.

I've suggested to my brother, who suffers from gout, to consider eliminating certain things from his diet. One of the things I suggested was that he start limiting the nightshades. I don't know if he's tried it or not, since that topic hasn't come up in our conversations lately. He was doing well until he severed the tip of his ring finger in a freak blacksmithy accident a few weeks ago.

But, wow, when you start cutting away the junk in the diet, and then start hacking away at the nightshades, things start looking pretty grim.

Regarding the topic starting this thread:

I really have started to not supplement anything while fasting, and have started to reduce the cream in my coffee, as well.

So, for me it looks like:

Water with ACV upon rising.
Coffee with a bit of half and half and cinammon shortly afterwards
Following that, it's water or yerba mate or some fresh iced green tea.

Break fast: Take supps.

Generally I take it easy on the mate unless I decide not to drink coffee for the day, since I noticed that too much of any of that stuff effects my sleep. Mate's effects become much more pronounced when IFing.

Garrett Smith
04-30-2007, 05:55 AM
I also wanted to clarify several things on the actual topic of this thread.

I break the fast with food after 3pm on my feed days. I only take my supplements on the mornings of my feed days, with my powdered glandular shake.

I drink 16 oz. of coffee a day. I consider this a necessary evil at the current time, as I sure as heck know it's not "natural" for humans to try to run two businesses! There are good and bad points to coffee. Over time, as I am able to delegate responsibility and guarantee my proper sleep, I will ditch the coffee, except maybe a bit on weekends.

One will not find me vehemently defending coffee as an elixir...

Steve Shafley
04-30-2007, 06:06 AM
I think coffee, and caffiene in general, is one of the longest used drugs in the history of the human race.

Right up there with alcohol.

Remember, beer used to be drunk because it was really bad for you to drink the water. Ah, those were the days!

Humans seem to want to get high. I know folks who claim that marijuana really is medicinal.

The recent "metastatistical" analysis that revealed high levels of coffee intake were better than statin drugs was my favorite piece of that sort of "research".

Stuart Mather
04-30-2007, 06:37 AM
I believe it is the long term effects from prolonged use of artificial sweetners that pose the greatest health concerns.

What's your time frame Steve? Ten, twenty, thirty years perhaps? Come to think of it, saccharin has been used prolifically throughout the world for at least fifty years. If there was even a tenuous statistical correlation (not to mention a causal mechanism) between prolonged saccharin use and any health problems, let alone serious ones, believe me, Big Sugar would have made sure every man and his dog knew about it. Sucralose hasn't been around for nearly as long, but IMHO, there is considerably more risk from that other chlorinated molecule, common salt, because you only ever need to use sucralose in infinitesimal amounts.

Stuart

Steve Liberati
04-30-2007, 03:39 PM
Don't use salt and fifty years is a very, very short time frame in our millions of years of existence. Sorry but the verdict is still out. You play casino, not me.

Mike ODonnell
04-30-2007, 05:21 PM
fasting helps the body to deal with additional chemicals in our system....so even though artificial sweetners are everywhere, our liver gets some time during a fast to help deal with all those things.....at some point there is a breakdown in health...what the level is? No idea....as it is individualistic to every person based on their current state of health and what their toxicity input on a daily basis is (and their body's ability to handle it).

Prevention is a lifestyle...that hopefully I will never have to prove how long it takes me to get sick...because I never get there....

Remember, beer used to be drunk because it was really bad for you to drink the water. Ah, those were the days!

You mean it's safe to drink the water?? Funny....never got that memo....

Stuart Mather
05-01-2007, 07:46 AM
The really curious thing about the artificial sweetener unnatural, therefore must = toxic is that humans seem incabable of applying the same reasoning to that potent neurotoxin, alcohol, when its biochemistry is so well understood to be harmful even in tiny amounts. It's particularly prevalent in the male mind. Moderate alcohol consumption must be OK. It's sooo .... culturally entrenched.

At least try to be consistent;) . Can't you see how ridiculous the anti AI argument is. There's no credible scientific evidence that sucralose, saccharin, acesulfame-K or cyclamate are harmful to humans, even at doses astronomically higher than even somebody with even a frightening sweettooth would concievably consume. And yet a substance whose toxicity is well and intimately understood is almost de rigeur in 'moderation' because .... well, Men just like to drink beer.

I know who's really playing poker with their health. And to the members of this forum who never drink alcohol, I sincerely apologize for any inferred lack of objectivity, and take another sip of my (moderately, of course) artificially sweetened mate tea :)

And Steve, wether or not you (or anyone else) add salt to your food, rest assured all food ,processed or not, contains it in varying amounts.

Ron Nelson
05-01-2007, 10:25 AM
Time to remind all about Ron's Holy Trinity of Fluids:

Beer
Coffee
Milk

Milk has been out of fashion lately with green tea making a surprisingly strong showing of late.

What is this water substance people speak of? I use a clear, tasteless liquid to make my tea and coffee. Is that close?

Steve Liberati
05-01-2007, 01:21 PM
Stuart-
I don't understand your reasoning. You are trying to counterclaim the health and safety threat of unnatural, artificial sweetners by comparing them to other made-made substances such as alchohol and salt. The problem is artificial (love that word!) sweetners are simply the lesser of two evils. Whether abortion is as violent as a cold blooded murder, it doesn't make a difference. It still is murder (though a different topic for a different day:)).

While we agree consuming AI's may not be any worse for you than consuming alcohol and salt, that's not to say they are not harmful. While you continue to look for the scientific facts here, I'll continue to use common sense and avoid them as best as possible. Considering man has a history of inventing few if any substances that are good for people long term, I'd be very surprised if artificial sweetners is that one substance man got right.

There is nothing that humans need that mother nature hasn't already afforded to us. AI's are no exceptions IMO.

Stuart Mather
05-01-2007, 04:53 PM
Stuart-
I don't understand your reasoning. You are trying to counterclaim the health and safety threat of unnatural, artificial sweetners by comparing them to other made-made substances such as alchohol and salt. The problem is artificial (love that word!) sweetners are simply the lesser of two evils. Whether abortion is as violent as a cold blooded murder, it doesn't make a difference. It still is murder (though a different topic for a different day:)).


Steve, there it is again, that assumption that 'artificial' is necessarily 'better' (or 'healthier', or some other simplistic qualitative comparison) than natural. The natural world is far, far more inventive and creative than humans ever were at creating (and concentrating) a bewildering kaleidoscope of toxins for survival advantage. Believe me, humans are mere babes at that particular game. And toxins that evolution has never been able develop comphrehensive protection against either, which is why the various plants and animals that employ them do so - they work.

And as for abortion, trust a male mind to think that it's undoubted violence is somehow worse (or even equivalent) to the violence inflicted on the hapless children themselves or society itself, of bringing unwanted children into the world. Unfortunately, the human mind is innately selfish, no more clearly demonstrated than deciding that because abortion is 'murder' then it must be worse than allowing the termination to proceed.


While we agree consuming AI's may not be any worse for you than consuming alcohol and salt, that's not to say they are not harmful. While you continue to look for the scientific facts here, I'll continue to use common sense and avoid them as best as possible. Considering man has a history of inventing few if any substances that are good for people long term, I'd be very surprised if artificial sweetners is that one substance man got right.

There is nothing that humans need that mother nature hasn't already afforded to us. AI's are no exceptions IMO.

Geez Steve, I never even suggested AI's are equivalent in risk to alcohol and salt. I've never seen any evidence that they (with the exception of aspartame) are harmful at all. What I pointed out was that the same people who run with the reasoning that there 'could be' some speculative risk - AI's are 'artificial' so they must be unhealthy - are (usually) the same people who cling so unyieldingly to their moderate alcohol habit.
Some people do react to AI's. But some people react to eggs (among a myriad of other food sensitivities). Most people react to gluten. All people react to concentrated sugar or starch, and alcohol,and to salt above certain levels (which may or may not include some added salt - my goats chickens and horses are far healthier when their diet is salt supplemented). Yet these are all 'natural' substances.

What Mother Nature bequeathed to us was a fearful, nasty, brutish and short life, which also just happened to include some macronutrient ratio (and micronutrient) diet imperatives we ignore at our peril. Not to mention an almost palpable ability to oversimplify things, such as the long standing furphy that 'natural' must be 'better' than 'artificial.

Robb Wolf
05-01-2007, 06:04 PM
Keep things nice and above the belt guys.

Stuart Mather
05-01-2007, 06:47 PM
Keep things nice and above the belt guys.

Yeah it had occurred to me that the reference to abortion might have been informed by your religious faith Steve. If you do believe in any god (s) I'm really sorry for responding to the abortion analogy, and for any offense it may have caused. I'm afraid IMHO Religious loyalties don't make for very sensible discussion. Passionate perhaps...but ;) .

Garrett Smith
05-01-2007, 06:58 PM
Geez, and all because I had a freakin' cup of coffee...

Stuart, I believe that humans, knowingly, intentionally, or neither, are incredibly proficient at creating and concentrating toxins that evolution has not had any chance at creating comprehensive protection against. I'm pretty sure of that. I deal with the aftereffects of these toxins every day.

Years, or even several decades of studies on sucralose, done by the companies themselves, only because they had to in order to $ell it, will hardly be enough to sway my view on that subject. That's combined with the fact that the negative studies which surely developed never saw the light of day (anyone familiar with the pharmaceutical "study industry" knows that much). Just as the tobacco companies figured out over years how to add synergistic compounds to their cigarettes that both increased addiction and damage potential, I have no doubt that the food companies are even better and wilier at it. Look at the advertising--"made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar". What a load of crap, and an outright chemical lie.

If artificial sweeteners in general had the effect that they are supposed to, in terms of affecting macronutrient consumption of humans in a positive manner, I would have to believe that the US would not have the skyrocketing obesity rates that it does (especially assuming that it is the overweight and obese that are consuming the most of them in an effort to get less fat). That and the fact that every single person who comes into my office on artificial sweeteners (of any sort) is already fat, AND that they feel better once they get off of them. The black box I call my medical office doesn't jive with what you are claiming.

The level of usage you choose may or may not have a negative impact on your health, due to your personal biochemical characteristics or genetics. That being as it is, I refuse to play games of chance with my patients' health just because the "data" appears to say it's safe short-term, while my experience (both personal, medical, and intuition) tells me that it's just better to avoid that substance and keep overall carbs relatively low.

Stuart Mather
05-01-2007, 07:47 PM
Geez, and all because I had a freakin' cup of coffee...

Stuart, I believe that humans, knowingly, intentionally, or neither, are incredibly proficient at creating and concentrating toxins that evolution has not had any chance at creating comprehensive protection against. I'm pretty sure of that. I deal with the aftereffects of these toxins every day.

That's the point Garrett, it's a myth that evolution has created any, let alone comprehensive protection, against any effective natural toxin. That's why they're effective. A toxin is a toxin, man made or 'natural'.

Years, or even several decades of studies on sucralose, done by the companies themselves, only because they had to in order to $ell it, will hardly be enough to sway my view on that subject. That's combined with the fact that the negative studies which surely developed never saw the light of day (anyone familiar with the pharmaceutical "study industry" knows that much).

'.... surely developed....'. Wishful thinking perhaps?

Just as the tobacco companies figured out over years how to add synergistic compounds to their cigarettes that both increased addiction and damage potential, I have no doubt that the food companies are even better and wilier at it. Look at the advertising--"made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar". What a load of crap, and an outright chemical lie.

Actually the raw material is sugar, and you should try it sometime, because it definitely has the most similarity with the taste of sugar of them all. And the legality of this advertising line is being decided as we speak. Sucralose is neither addictive, nor IMHO does it do any damage.

If artificial sweeteners in general had the effect that they are supposed to, in terms of affecting macronutrient consumption of humans in a positive manner, I would have to believe that the US would not have the skyrocketing obesity rates that it does (especially assuming that it is the overweight and obese that are consuming the most of them in an effort to get less fat).

That's not the effect that 'they are supposed to' have. They are are calorie free alternative to calorific sweeteners. That's all. Most people who use artificial sweeteners simply use them as an excuse to go on eating the same sugar and starch that made them fat in the first place, using the 'well the splenda isn't doing me any harm so I'll eat that too' argument. People are the problem, Garrett, not sucralose.

That and the fact that every single person who comes into my office on artificial sweeteners (of any sort) is already fat, AND that they feel better once they get off of them. The black box I call my medical office doesn't jive with what you are claiming

And yet the plethora of published low carb authors with an overwhelming volume of well documented clinical experience, from Lutz to the Eades, would tell a very different story. My own personal experience certainly agrees with what is, I'm afraid, a very much more impressive 'jive'. Not that I'm doubting your clinical experience Garrett. lt's just that its not very statistically signifigant;)


The level of usage you choose may or may not have a negative impact on your health, due to your personal biochemical characteristics or genetics. That being as it is, I refuse to play games of chance with my patients' health just because the "data" appears to say it's safe short-term, while my experience (both personal, medical, and intuition) tells me that it's just better to avoid that substance and keep overall carbs relatively low.

Concentrate on carbs, Garrett. IMHO, and in the opinion of the best scientific (and clinical) evidence, AI's can and do help people to get off the carb/insulin roller coaster, and enjoy sweet like any other 'taste', without the metabolic downside.

Robb Wolf
05-02-2007, 08:18 AM
I think artificial sweeteners are far more benign than high fructose corn syrup but they do seem to send some folks into a backslide towards refined carbs. I think some people do still elicit a potent insulin response to some sweeteners. Some data seems to back this.

I do LOVE it when I'm pestering clients about this topic and they feel the artificial sweeteners are dangerous because they are "chemicals". Lets see here...we have matter and energy....I get what they mean but for most just getting them off the crack is the most important step it seems.

Ron Nelson
05-02-2007, 09:59 AM
Give me saccharine, or give me death!
What? I can have both? Well, barkeep, get me an extra-large Tab, STAT.

Steve Liberati
05-02-2007, 02:29 PM
Yeah it had occurred to me that the reference to abortion might have been informed by your religious faith Steve. If you do believe in any god (s) I'm really sorry for responding to the abortion analogy, and for any offense it may have caused. I'm afraid IMHO Religious loyalties don't make for very sensible discussion. Passionate perhaps...but ;) .

No offense taken Stuart. Actually regret using the abortion analogy for that reason, especially given the fact I consider myself an animist with zero faith in the God (s) perceived by our culture's "major" religions.

As for AI's...I honestly doubt either of us will change one another's opinion on this topic so let's consider this a draw and eat/avoid AI's to our own personal liking.

I'm already starting to get a headache reading this thread carry one...or maybe that was just from the packet of equal I put in my herbal tea a few minutes ago...:)

Stuart Mather
05-02-2007, 03:26 PM
I think some people do still elicit a potent insulin response to some sweeteners. Some data seems to back this.



I'm really curious about this 'some'. If the insulin response to AI's was potent, but there was no blood sugar elevating carb to justify it, wouldn't blood sugar crash, much like a hypoglycemic event? I mean, that's what insulin does - lower glucose levels in the blood to keep blood sugar stable. Yet no AI's have any effect on actual blood sugar (not surprisingly since they contain zero carbohydrate - the maltodextrin in 'Splenda' notwithstanding). You couldn't direct me to the data you mention Robb, could you?

Stuart

Mike ODonnell
05-02-2007, 03:44 PM
So am I reading this right that Stevia is recommended for Diabetics because it DOES stimulate insulin?? Which is interesting since most all people are now switching over to Stevia because it is "natural"...when it may do more harm than good for people looking to lose weight?? Robb....get your nerds in the saucer to translate this....too many big words for me...

I think some people do still elicit a potent insulin response to some sweeteners. Some data seems to back this.

Rebaudioside A Potently Stimulates Insulin Secretion From Isolated Mouse Islets:Studies on the Dose-, Glucose-, and Calcium-Dependency 2004 [PDF]

Extracts of leaves of the plant Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni (SrB), have been used for many years in traditional treatment of diabetes in South America. Stevia leaves contain diterpene glycosides, stevioside and rebaudioside A being the most abundant. Recently, it was demonstrated that stevioside stimulates the insulin secretion both in vitro and in vivo. Subse- quently, we wanted to elucidate the influence of rebaudioside A on the insulin release from mouse islets using static incubations, as well as perifusion experiments. Rebaudioside A
http://www.steviainfo.com/research_articles/Abudula%20et%20al%20(2004).pdf

Robb Wolf
05-02-2007, 03:55 PM
I'm really curious about this 'some'. If the insulin response to AI's was potent, but there was no blood sugar elevating carb to justify it, wouldn't blood sugar crash, much like a hypoglycemic event? I mean, that's what insulin does - lower glucose levels in the blood to keep blood sugar stable. Yet no AI's have any effect on actual blood sugar (not surprisingly since they contain zero carbohydrate - the maltodextrin in 'Splenda' notwithstanding). You couldn't direct me to the data you mention Robb, could you?

Stuart

Stuart-
There is a mountain of data on this phenomena:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2887500&dopt=Abstract

I just grabbed this one, there are more...and yes, an artificial sweetener will releases insulin, crash blood sugar and cause a desire for more carbs. It also perpetuates insulin resistance. Our clients who refuse to cut artificial sweeteners from the diet have a buggar of a time loosing weight compared to the folks who are low-carb AND not using sweeteners.

There are many studies showing a potent insulin release in individuals simply looking at or thinking about sweets. The effects vary but they can be quite dramatic.

Robb Wolf
05-02-2007, 04:00 PM
So am I reading this right that Stevia is recommended for Diabetics because it DOES stimulate insulin?? Which is interesting since most all people are now switching over to Stevia because it is "natural"...when it may do more harm than good for people looking to lose weight?? Robb....get your nerds in the saucer to translate this....too many big words for me...



Rebaudioside A Potently Stimulates Insulin Secretion From Isolated Mouse Islets:Studies on the Dose-, Glucose-, and Calcium-Dependency 2004 [PDF]

Extracts of leaves of the plant Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni (SrB), have been used for many years in traditional treatment of diabetes in South America. Stevia leaves contain diterpene glycosides, stevioside and rebaudioside A being the most abundant. Recently, it was demonstrated that stevioside stimulates the insulin secretion both in vitro and in vivo. Subse- quently, we wanted to elucidate the influence of rebaudioside A on the insulin release from mouse islets using static incubations, as well as perifusion experiments. Rebaudioside A
http://www.steviainfo.com/research_articles/Abudula%20et%20al%20(2004).pdf (http://www.steviainfo.com/research_articles/Abudula%20et%20al%20%282004%29.pdf)


Ummm, yea. that's a problem and it's the same thinking about 70% of general practitioners in the US shares. Insulin resistant? Shit, lets jsut hammer you with MORE insulin! Or the sulfonyl drugs that stimulate the pancreas to release more insulin.

There are some helpful items out there like cinnamon which works as an insulin analog but without decreasing insulin receptor density. Using stevia to drop blood sugar is not fixing the damn problem.

Garrett Smith
05-02-2007, 04:12 PM
I don't know which data Robb was referring to...I found the hypoglycemia part of this study interesting...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=8875098&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

During test meals with sucralose, one episode of symptomatic hypoglycemia occurred in each of three IDDM patients, but these episodes were not considered the result of sucralose administration.

I'd be interested to know why three of the sucralose subjects experienced symptomatic hypoglycemia, none of the others did, and yet it's somehow not related to the sucralose...I mean, there was only 26 total subjects and it was a cross-over study...why did it happen to 3 of the IDDM subjects when consuming sucralose and not with the other meals? I just find it interesting...

Maybe Robb has more interesting stuff than I could find on a simple PubMed search.

Stuart Mather
05-02-2007, 05:08 PM
Stuart-
There is a mountain of data on this phenomena:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2887500&dopt=Abstract

I just grabbed this one, there are more...and yes, an artificial sweetener will releases insulin, crash blood sugar and cause a desire for more carbs. It also perpetuates insulin resistance. Our clients who refuse to cut artificial sweeteners from the diet have a buggar of a time loosing weight compared to the folks who are low-carb AND not using sweeteners.

There are many studies showing a potent insulin release in individuals simply looking at or thinking about sweets. The effects vary but they can be quite dramatic.

I'm thinking that there might be more of the 'Pavlov' mechanism at work here than we realize. Robb, the studies you have linked to are all really short term. The metabolic necessity of releasing insulin if sweet 'normally' means elevated blood sugar, is a pretty compelling reason for insulin cranking up 'just at the thought of sweet' - dog saliva like. But over time, if you constantly remind yourself that 'sweet' does not mean carbs at all, then perhaps neither the mental association, much less calorie free sweet taste, produces insulin release. I honestly can't even remember if the first few months of VLC (<40g) regular AS use were characterized by blood sugar crashes. I would have thought I would have remembered, life long hypoglycemia was one of the reasons I got interested in low carbing to begin with. But the last five years have been hypoglycemia free. It's probably the most conspicuous benefit of this dietary approach. But my regular AS use is matched only by my avoiding intense calorific sweet completely.

Why would you mess with the hard stuff if you can have all the fun without any downside? And for all those culinary adventures where the functional characteristics of sugar are essential, there's erythritol, so you can avoid the side effects of all the other sugar alcohols too:) .

Allen Yeh
05-03-2007, 03:00 AM
There are some helpful items out there like cinnamon which works as an insulin analog but without decreasing insulin receptor density. Using stevia to drop blood sugar is not fixing the damn problem.

How much cinnamon is recommended per day? Currently I'll throw in a tbsp in my shake and since being here I've read how cinnamon is good but I don't recall specific amounts being mentioned.

Allen Yeh
05-03-2007, 03:02 AM
I just grabbed this one, there are more...and yes, an artificial sweetener will releases insulin, crash blood sugar and cause a desire for more carbs. It also perpetuates insulin resistance. Our clients who refuse to cut artificial sweeteners from the diet have a buggar of a time loosing weight compared to the folks who are low-carb AND not using sweeteners.

You answered my question before I even asked it! Last night I was thinking about artificial sweeteners and I knew you had said in some it can pose a problem. I was wondering on the "how do you know it causes a problem" and voila the answer was here when I logged on.

Robb the mind reader/nerd herd flying saucer guru!

Robb Wolf
05-03-2007, 09:33 AM
All I know is AS's can buggar weight loss and clean eating in many people. For some it may work as an effective half-way house and like any tool they have their application...it's just not as simple as "sugar free...good to go".

This is a bit like the caffeine question. Barry Sears (I think Atkins concurred on this) recommends against it as it stalls weight loss in obese individuals. For athletes caffiene can work as a potent lipolytic, especially if used the right way. I just tracked a paper down that talks about the blunted endocrine/lipolytic response to epinephrine in the obese.
Same chemical, different populations, different considerations.

Mike ODonnell
05-03-2007, 12:46 PM
This is a bit like the caffeine question. Barry Sears (I think Atkins concurred on this) recommends against it as it stalls weight loss in obese individuals.

I want to be there when Robb tells people this while sipping his 6th expresso.... :D