About diabetic friendly supplemental drinks

On Fri, 4 May 2012 15:55:50 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger
wrote:

Dogman wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

[...]
There's almost no down side to not eating any cereal grains.

With all due respect, Doug, I bet you wouldn't say that if you'd read
"Wheat Belly."

The primary downside to not eating cereal grains is economic.
[...]

As Susan pointed out, I apparently misread your post, Doug. Sorry
about that!

--
Dogman

On May 3, 12:33*pm, Doug Freyburger wrote:
Bill O'Meally wrote:
Nana.Wilson said:

I like steel cut oat meal (only draw back is that it take over 20 min.
to cook) *I has a lower glycemic effect for me. *Aspartame does not
aggree with me so I use stevia or splenda. *I use soy milk.

Heavy cream or butter work better in hot cereal than variations on milk.
Or if you can find Hood low carb milk near you that works. *I see it in
stores every so often but it is not carried consistantly in my area. *I
don't understand as it flies off the shelves when it is present. *I see
an empty slot and a Hood sticker twice as often as I see the Hood low
carb milk itself.

Funny, it's similar here. At my local Shoprite in NJ Hood
LC milk comes and goes. And it's not that they have a
shelf for it but it's all gone. For a few months it will be
there, then suddenly that shelf spot is gone. Many months
later when I've long since given up looking for it there, by
chance I happen to notice that it's back again....

On 5/4/2012 1:03 PM, Doug Freyburger wrote:
James Warren wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

I speculate that any artificial sweetener will have studies that condemn
it. Consider the financial incentives of the patent time sequence.
Before the patent studies will need to show it is not toxic to get it to
market. Then studies early in the 17 year patent life need to show it
is safe to build brand reputuation. Then studies late in the 17 year
patent life need to show it has problems to interfere with the marketing
of the generics. And eventually studies can go either way once the
patent is long expired. Looking at the several very old artificial
sweeteners my model have approximately worked so I use it to predict the
arc of events for the new ones. They all end up cursed one way or
another because the next patented one needs a market.

This sounds a bit conspiratorial to me.

Agreed, but the gigantic push for low fat across decades was equally
conspiratorial. The predicted arc of artificial sweeteners that I
suggest follows the money.

I don't think it was conspiratorial, it was merely wrong. A wrong decision,
once made, is often fiercely defended until it is finally conclusively
proved to be wrong or until the costs of the wrong decision have become
very burdensome.


If a drug can be shown to be harmful, even if has previously been approved,
it will be removed from the marketplace. Recent removals of some COX-2
pain medications demonstrate this. I am not aware of a good, well done,
study with proper controls that have demonstrated statistical evidence of
harm from aspartame. Numerous studies have been done but none have been
conclusive. I remain to be convinced.

Cyclamates were incorrectly banned. This makes it extremely difficult
for the FDA to ban another artifical sweetener. They already have a
track record of banning the wrong product so they would get intense
resistance from parties not otherwise involved. The burden of proof is
now far too high to ban even a product much worse than the ambiguous
aspartame.

I still have seen no good evidence for harm from aspartame.

On 5/4/2012 1:58 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 10:38:50 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

On 5/3/2012 6:53 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Thu, 03 May 2012 17:18:33 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

[...]
I haven't yet read the study but I can say that Mercola is listed
as a quack on quackwatch.

Are you sure you want to offer Quackwatch as a reliable source?

http://www.canlyme.com/quackwatch.html
http://www.raysahelian.com/quackwatch.html
http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/QuackWatchWatch.htm
http://www.quackpo****ch.org/quackpo...ts/barrett.htm

There are a great many true quack listed on quackwatch.

Even a blind dog can find a bone once in a while.

More than once in a while. A large majority of the quacks listed
are indeed quacks.


It is possible
that Barrett is sometimes a little over eager in declaring a quack and
he no doubt has made a few mistakes. One has to think for oneself using
whatever evidence one can find.

Barrett meets the very definition of the word quack.

How so? Does he offer dubious medical advice or make dubious medical
claims?


Regarding aspartame: I think it can probably be safely used by most
people, but only in small quantities.
http://waroninsulin.com/nutrition/wh...ar-substitutes

There will always be a few out of the many millions who use any mass
produced food product that react badly to it. But if the harm were
large enough to reliably detect in sample sizes of millions it surely
would have been found by now.

True. On the other hand, and considering that there are far safer
alternatives available to us today, why chance it?

Do they appear safer because conspiracy theories have not yet arisen
around them?


As an aside, it is not possible for a
human to consume the quantities fed to rats.

Personally, I avoid it, along with most of the artificial sweeteners,
with stevia and xylitol being two of those exceptions. I've managed to
lose about 85% of my sweet tooth over the years, but I'll probably
never eliminate it completely.


I don't avoid them. I drink diet beverages in moderation.

Define "moderation."

In my case, about 2-3 diet drinks per week.

On Fri, 04 May 2012 14:44:35 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

[...]
More than once in a while. A large majority of the quacks listed
are indeed quacks.

Do you think Dr. Robert Atkins was a quack? Really?

It is possible
that Barrett is sometimes a little over eager in declaring a quack and
he no doubt has made a few mistakes. One has to think for oneself using
whatever evidence one can find.

Barrett meets the very definition of the word quack.

How so? Does he offer dubious medical advice or make dubious medical
claims?

Yes, when he claims that Dr. Atkins was a quack, for example.

[...]
True. On the other hand, and considering that there are far safer
alternatives available to us today, why chance it?

Do they appear safer because conspiracy theories have not yet arisen
around them?

That's possible (anything is possible), but not probable.

The best strategy is to do without any added sweetener whenever
possible, and it's almost always possible.

[...]
I don't avoid them. I drink diet beverages in moderation.

Define "moderation."

In my case, about 2-3 diet drinks per week.

That number probably won't kill you, or make you sick (although there
is some chance that 2-3 will eventually lead to 4-5, which may
eventually lead to 7-8, etc.), but you'd be much healthier doing
without them altogether and drinking water, tea or coffee instead.

But it is your life, not mine.

--
Dogman

On Fri, 04 May 2012 15:33:44 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

[...]
He might well be overzealous and have strict evidence requirements
for claims. But isn't this a good thing?

What "strict evidence requirement" did he have to cause him to imply
that Dr. Robert Atkins was a quack?



--
Dogman

On 5/4/2012 3:55 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 14:44:35 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

[...]
More than once in a while. A large majority of the quacks listed
are indeed quacks.

Do you think Dr. Robert Atkins was a quack? Really?

I don't think I ever said that.


It is possible
that Barrett is sometimes a little over eager in declaring a quack and
he no doubt has made a few mistakes. One has to think for oneself using
whatever evidence one can find.

Barrett meets the very definition of the word quack.

How so? Does he offer dubious medical advice or make dubious medical
claims?

Yes, when he claims that Dr. Atkins was a quack, for example.

I don't recall seeing Atkins on his list. Atkins was vindicated but
at the time he didn't have a lot of evidence for his ideas.


[...]
True. On the other hand, and considering that there are far safer
alternatives available to us today, why chance it?

Do they appear safer because conspiracy theories have not yet arisen
around them?

That's possible (anything is possible), but not probable.

Who's to say. Aspartame was golden when introduced.


The best strategy is to do without any added sweetener whenever
possible, and it's almost always possible.

[...]
I don't avoid them. I drink diet beverages in moderation.

Define "moderation."

In my case, about 2-3 diet drinks per week.

That number probably won't kill you, or make you sick (although there
is some chance that 2-3 will eventually lead to 4-5, which may
eventually lead to 7-8, etc.), but you'd be much healthier doing
without them altogether and drinking water, tea or coffee instead.

But it is your life, not mine.


I don't think it is possible for a normal human to consume aspartame
in the quantities that are likely to cause harm. I still have yet to see
a good study in a reputable journal showing harm in humans from expected
levels of consumption of aspartame.

On 5/4/2012 3:59 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 15:33:44 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

[...]
He might well be overzealous and have strict evidence requirements
for claims. But isn't this a good thing?

What "strict evidence requirement" did he have to cause him to imply
that Dr. Robert Atkins was a quack?

Did he do that? Atkins himself didn't have a lot of evidence
did he? He had reasonable plausibility arguments but the evidence didn't
come until fairly recently.

On Fri, 04 May 2012 16:07:23 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

On 5/4/2012 3:55 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 14:44:35 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

[...]
More than once in a while. A large majority of the quacks listed
are indeed quacks.

Do you think Dr. Robert Atkins was a quack? Really?

I don't think I ever said that.

Stephen Barrett lists Dr. Atkins as a quack. So I was just asking you
if you agree with Barrett, and if you do, why?

[...]
How so? Does he offer dubious medical advice or make dubious medical
claims?

Yes, when he claims that Dr. Atkins was a quack, for example.

I don't recall seeing Atkins on his list. Atkins was vindicated but
at the time he didn't have a lot of evidence for his ideas.

He's there. About half the way down. http://www.quackwatch.com/

And there was far more more evidence that Atkins was right than there
was that a low-fat diet was the way to go. Going back to Banting's
great book, "Letters on Corpulence," in the mid 19th century.

[...]
True. On the other hand, and considering that there are far safer
alternatives available to us today, why chance it?

Do they appear safer because conspiracy theories have not yet arisen
around them?

That's possible (anything is possible), but not probable.

Who's to say. Aspartame was golden when introduced.

So was sugar, low-fat diets, "healthy whole grains," blood-letting,
Vioxx, etc., etc., etc.

The best strategy is to do without any added sweetener whenever
possible, and it's almost always possible.

[...]
I don't avoid them. I drink diet beverages in moderation.

Define "moderation."

In my case, about 2-3 diet drinks per week.

That number probably won't kill you, or make you sick (although there
is some chance that 2-3 will eventually lead to 4-5, which may
eventually lead to 7-8, etc.), but you'd be much healthier doing
without them altogether and drinking water, tea or coffee instead.

But it is your life, not mine.

I don't think it is possible for a normal human to consume aspartame
in the quantities that are likely to cause harm.

There are numerous studies which show that artificial sweeteners are
even more addictive than sugar, and cause overeating.

I shouldn't have to tell you that than can cause more than just harm,
but even death, over time.

I still have yet to see
a good study in a reputable journal showing harm in humans from expected
levels of consumption of aspartame.

Then drink up!

--
Dogman

On Fri, 04 May 2012 16:09:05 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

On 5/4/2012 3:59 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 15:33:44 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

[...]
He might well be overzealous and have strict evidence requirements
for claims. But isn't this a good thing?

What "strict evidence requirement" did he have to cause him to imply
that Dr. Robert Atkins was a quack?

Did he do that? Atkins himself didn't have a lot of evidence
did he? He had reasonable plausibility arguments but the evidence didn't
come until fairly recently.

The evidence has been there for hundreds, maybe even million of years.

Obesity is a relatively new phenomenon.

To this day, the American Diabetes Association recommends that
diabetics eat a high-carb/low-fat diet.

That's like telling alcoholics to drink more beer.

If any organization belongs on Quackwatch, it's the ADA.

--
Dogman