About diabetic friendly supplemental drinks

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

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

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.

--
Dogman

On Thu, 3 May 2012 21:46:07 +0000 (UTC), 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."



--
Dogman

On 2012-05-03 11:58:57 -0500, Dogman said:


IMO: There is no such thing as a good cereal, if that cereal is made
from GRAINS.

See: Wheat Belly, by Dr. Wm. Davis. http://www.wheatbellyblog.com/

I do plan to read it in that I've heard so much about the book. I guess
I'm just a bit reluctant in that I'm not sure I want to be completely
turned off of grains yet (little that I still use). Also, I am a
homebrewer and that is my one guilty pleasures that I don't think I'll
ever give up. Even then I don't drink nearly as much beer as I used to.

The main ingredient in my concoction is the chia seeds. They swell up
with the addition of the almond milk and are quite tastey. They are
tiny, so you need a good flossing afterwards! I should try leaving out
the Fiber One altogether to see how it turns out. I suspect one could
even make a hot "cereal" from it.

Have others here tried chia seeds yet? Supposedly higher in omega-3
than flax seed.
--
Bill
"Wise Fool" -- Gandalf, _The Two Towers_
(The Wise will remove 'se' to reach me. The Foolish will not)

On 5/3/2012 6:42 PM, Doug Freyburger wrote:
James Warren wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:
Bill O'Meally wrote:

I'm not a fan of aspartame either.

It has no effect on me but I do know two people who get effects from it.
My wife gets headaches when she switches to splenda based sodas so some
sort of withdrawal effect. An old friend gets brain fog when he gets
dosed with Diet Dr Pepper. Many can't tell diet from regular for that
brand.

Can you do better than anecdotes? A good study reference would be nice.

I can't. Given how contradictory the many studies are I don't think a
really good conclusion is going to be available any time soon. I also
think a good conclusion is going to come out "it depends".

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.

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.

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. 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.


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. 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.

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 long
as there are poor people in the world three are some who must eat grain
or starve. The world economic cycle lasts about a decade so go back
measuring in pairs of decades and you'll see a trend that the percentage
of the human population in extreme poverty gradually declines. The
losses during economic downturns are problems and they seem worse
because we are still in one but the long term trend remains clear. In
time the percentage in extreme poverty should be so low the absolute
number in extreme poverty should start declining. That's the hope
anyways.

I think this is the part you intended to keep:

For most people I think the main benefit is lowered carb count not
triggering previously undetected intolerances.

Bill O'Meally wrote:

Also, I am a
homebrewer and that is my one guilty pleasures that I don't think I'll
ever give up. Even then I don't drink nearly as much beer as I used to.

I average somewhere in the range of 1-1.5 drinks per week including ones
at restaurants and pubs. Yet I brew a few five gallon batches each year
and drink well under half of the ale/mead I brew. I give a lot of it
away.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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."



--
Dogman

On Thu, 3 May 2012 18:24:02 -0500, Bill O'Meally
wrote:

On 2012-05-03 11:58:57 -0500, Dogman said:


IMO: There is no such thing as a good cereal, if that cereal is made
from GRAINS.

See: Wheat Belly, by Dr. Wm. Davis. http://www.wheatbellyblog.com/

I do plan to read it in that I've heard so much about the book. I guess
I'm just a bit reluctant in that I'm not sure I want to be completely
turned off of grains yet (little that I still use).

Why? My guess is, you're just used to eating them. It's quite easy,
though, to get used to not eating them, too.

Also, I am a
homebrewer and that is my one guilty pleasures that I don't think I'll
ever give up. Even then I don't drink nearly as much beer as I used to.

I used to drink a LOT of beer. But I don't miss it at all now.

And I sure don't miss the beer belly!


--
Dogman