Sweeteners (was Re: Guilt, satiety, calorie restriction...)

[Guest guest]

,

Props on your post; I agree wholeheartedly with it. We often think as

nature or the human body as being almost omniscient and we forget the

basic facts of physiology. Honey is sugar and therefore deleterious to

health regardless of how 'natural' it is. I think this same logic also

applies to the appestat discussion some of us were having earlier.

Clearly the body doesn't always know when it's best to stop, because,

from an evolutionary perspective, it was very rarely faced with such a

choice.

-

> >

> > the nutrient-density of seaweed is a zillion times higher than cane.

> > " noble " and " natural " are subjective; the latter doesn't interest

> me,

> > and the former rests on nutrient-density for me.

>

> Cane sugar and seaweed are not being compared. If we compare

> something like seaweed soup and egg custard, the latter is far

> higher in essential protein and fat than the former.

>

> > same object, different names, one i prefer more than the other

> > because " weed " is pejorative. analogous to folks in the wild-

> > edibles world munching on the leaves of the dandelion plant and

> > calling it " dandelion greens " instead of " dandelion weeds " ...

>

> Sorry, I just find the use of " sea vegetable " to be silly. One

> ought to be able to eat what they want to eat, or believes they

> ought to eat, without being scared away by the name. I really

> don't see what's so bad about eating a " weed " .

>

> > well, i thoroughly disagree that most of these foods are

> defensible.

> > any of them with flour are products of the recent " flour era " in

> > human history, which is an example on the negative side of the

> > decidedly MIXED blessing of our wonderful human intelligence.

>

> It was the enjoyment of their _taste_ that was being defended,

> not the flour and sugar from which they are now usually made.

> That is the very point of a discussion of stevia. You implied

> that the very desire for such tastes itself was degenerate.

> You also implied that certain " natural " flavors could stand

> in place for them, which I think is total unrealistic and

> purely motivated by your personal dietary ideology, one which

> I, and others on the list, don't necessarily share.

>

> > any of the others can be fruitfully made and relished without

> > concentrated sweeteners (pun not resisted), or their occasional

> > appearance at the table could become a joyful showcase for the

> > judicious use of honey.

>

> I don't believe that either fruit or honey are healthy in

> the quantities that we (humans) usually want them. So this

> is no long-term solution. Some kind of non-caloric sweetener

> is still needed. I keep my daily consumption of carbohydrates

> at around 60 grams. Do you really think that this is possible

> if one daily consumes fruit and honey?

>

> > that's a good point, but i'm guessing that fruits have a much

> > longer, more ubiquitous, and more varied presence in the human

> > diet than honey.

>

> Fruit in ancient times was nothing like that of today, which

> has been bred for size and sugar content.

>

> > honey is a great whole food, but for all its virtues, i'm sure

> > it's easily overconsumed too.

>

> See, here again we disagree on basics. I think that honey, even

> organic raw unfiltered honey blessed by Greek Orthodox priests,

> is still little more than sugar. You obviously follow a belief

> that " natural " , whatever that means, is better, and that foods

> should be eaten " whole " , whatever than means (do you eat egg

> shells, stems and leaves on fruit, etc.?), but I don't. That's

> your right, but you can't automatically assume that anybody else

> on the list believes the same way.

>

> > the part of the brain that processes the experience of

> deliciousness

> > is different than the part of the brain that processes the

> experience

> > of ideological zeal, so if someone find some food delicous, i

> suspect

> > it's an authentic reflection of their palate.

>

> People are very good at fooling themselves. I've known a few

> people who years ago said the same things about sweets and

> proudly claimed to not need them because they had " purified "

> themselves and their sense of taste or whatever, but every

> one of one with whom I'm still in contact, now admits that it

> was a load, and they were just riding the wave of (mistaken)

> self-righteouss zeal that all new converts feel.

>

> > I would say life is a system of millions of overlapping cycles

> (note

> > plural) of desire, and the satisfaction of certain desires

> constrains

> > the satisfaction of other desires, requiring a dynamic selection of

> > desires for suppression or expression. like for example right now

> i

> > would like to go outside and forage for autumn olives and listen to

> > the rustling of leaves and songs of birds, but instead i'm staying

> > inside all night to prove theorems due tomorrow for a class...

>

> We're not squirrels, and most of us would eventually grow bored

> with such activities as you describe here too. In fact I would

> probably enjoy learning theorems on many days more than picking

> up leaves. This all goes to my underlying point. Many with an

> interest in health and diet have a quaint and romantic notion of

> what's good and natural, just as you portray here, and try to

> impose it on all of us. I didn't sign up for that.

>

> > that's a great point about salt, and of course it's one of the five

> > basic tastes. while the same is true indeed of sweetness, in the

> > examples i gave, there was authentic sweetness, not a simulation of

> > or distraction from sweetness. just less concentrated sweetness

> > enhanced in cooccurence with other tastes.

>

> Stevia's sweetness _is_ authentic, and _does_ occur with other

> tastes, the latter being the problem.

>

> > honey could be used in perfect health if one's diet is balanced by

> > the presence of other tastes, hence avoiding large quantities of

> > honey. if the degree to which you desire sweetness exceeds the

> > degree to which you could use honey without excess, then your

> > desires are not in harmony with your physiology.

>

> I don't believe that. I think that you, like so many others,

> are indulging in unrealistic idealism. You think that what

> is " natural " , or what you believe to be natural, must always

> be good and right, and that nature always provides a way. But

> that's an article of faith, not a scientific fact. I think

> that for the most part humans have a nearly unlimited appetite

> for carbohydrates. When a primitive band of humans came across

> the very occasional honey-comb or field of ripe berries, they

> gorged on as much as their bellies would hold, then laid around

> and digested and converted it to fat. When their stomachs were

> empty enough again, they gorged on more, and repeated until there

> was nothing left. This is how they survived. The inevitable

> periods of hunger between these wind-falls got rid of the excess

> fat, and allowed the blood-sugar regulatory system to rebuild

> itself. The real, or " natural " , check on our desire for carbs

> no longer exists. It was the brutal reality of ancient life.

> Personally, I'd rather use stevia than move to South Africa and

> join a band of pygmies.

>

> > if not, then you have no

> > reason to eschew honey in any situation where you desire

> > sweetness. it's much easier to change your desires than your

> > physiology.

>

> Our desires are based on our physiology, which often doesn't

> know as much as our brains.

>

> > you're absolutely right about that! you'll find the same tone of

> > arrogance and harshness in many of my posts in the archives as

> well,

> > and i bring this to other facets of my life besides this forum.

> it's

> > a very distinctive " style " , sort of unpleasantly scientific, but

> > potentially very fruitful to the extent it enhances the Popperian

> > falsifiability of my discourse. i've been studying nutrition for

> > less than two years, but if i'm right then i'm right, and if not,

> > then i'll revise my views and express them similarly...

>

> Science requires the revision of views as new data comes in,

> and as the logic of old arguments is reviewed and found to

> have been faulty all along. So it especially behooves a

> scientist not to burn any of his bridges behind him. (-:

>

> > ordinarily

> > people use smiley symbols at these junctures, but it doesn't fit my

> > style! (i've only used them maybe 3 or 4 times out of the

> thousands

> > of emails i've written in my life!)

>

> But smiles are natural, and make life sweeter! (-:

>

>

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 21:06:07 -0000

" wtsdv " <liberty@...> wrote:

>

>> I have found that there is a great variation in taste

>> between the brands of stevia. If you don't like one try

>> another.

>

>I've tried two or three brands, but I believe

>that it is the taste of stevia itself, in whatever

>form, that is the problem. It's hard to describe,

>but it's a bitter-sweet licorice-like taste, that

>simply will never blend well with certain flavors.

>For the same reason it seems to blend fairly well

>with tea and chocolate. I suppose, in part, because

>they are already bitter.

I didn't like the taste of Stevia at first (the green herb). But I have

come to find that over the years it sweetens for me just fine as long as

I don't overdo it. Too much and the bitter taste shows up.

[Guest guest]

>Message: 4

> Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 21:06:07 -0000

> From: " wtsdv " <liberty@...>

>Subject: Sweeteners (was Re: Guilt, satiety, calorie restriction...)

>

>

>

>

>>I have found that there is a great variation in taste

>>between the brands of stevia. If you don't like one try

>>another.

>>

>>

>

>I've tried two or three brands, but I believe

>that it is the taste of stevia itself, in whatever

>form, that is the problem. It's hard to describe,

>but it's a bitter-sweet licorice-like taste, that

>simply will never blend well with certain flavors.

>For the same reason it seems to blend fairly well

>with tea and chocolate. I suppose, in part, because

>they are already bitter.

>

>

I've found that that licorice taste is only there when I use too much

>

>

>>Personally, I prefer the Now brand regular stevia, not

>>their glycerite. For some reason the glycerite doesn't

>>seem as sweet and I need to use much more.

>>

>>

>

>I've used Now brand more than any other, but have

>never heard of glycerite. What is that? I might

>like to look into it.

>

It's a non-alcohol formula that uses glycerine instead. But I've tried 2

brands and didn't like either as they didn't seem anywhere near as sweet

as the regular with the alcohol. BTW the alcohol content is only about 5%

> In any case, the thing to

>search for in any stevia is a high percentage of

>rebaudiosides. Most of the sweetening power in

>stevia comes from the its content of steviosides,

>but the rebaudioside A in stevia is said to have

>the best flavor and to lack the distinctive stevia

>aftertaste. " Wisdom Herbs " stevia extract, which

>says on the label that it " includes 40% Rebaudioside

>A " , is the best that I've been able to find, though

>I've read that in Japan pure extracts of rebaudioside

>are available.

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

> I've found that that licorice taste is only there when I use

> too much

I under sweeten everything when I use stevia, because

of the odd taste.

> > . . . never heard of glycerite. What is that?

>

> It's a non-alcohol formula that uses glycerine instead. But

> I've tried 2 brands and didn't like either as they didn't seem

> anywhere near as sweet as the regular with the alcohol. BTW the

> alcohol content is only about 5%

Did you see Jo's post 31039? I'm going to try some of

the 80%-rebaudioside stevia and see what I think of it.