Sweeteners (was Re: Guilt, satiety, calorie restrictio...

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/6/03 6:46:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

liberty@... writes:

> Like the sweetness inherent in honey? I love the taste of

> honey and could easily sweeten everything with it. However

> I have learned in my twenty years of studying nutrition, that

> a diet high in carbohydrates, from whatever source is not

> healthy. I'm afraid that you're bringing a " holier than thou "

> attitude to the discussion of diet and health, my friend.

I didn't perceive Mike's post that way... but I think one point he was

hitting at is... well, here's my point that seems to agree with his somewhat:

While I think stevia is from a health point of view possibly an ideal

sweetener in that it is non-caloric and sugar free and doesn't seem to have side

effects, I have somewhat of a philosophical objection (though I still use it

occasionally) to using any artificial sweeteners, because, well, it's fake for

one,

but also because constant exposure to sweet taste in excess of what's natural

to have access to desensitizes your palate to sugar, and if one abandoned all

artifical sugars and consumed natural sweeteners in traditionally moderate

doses, ones palate would be sensitized to the myriad sugars we consume in whole

foods, thus enhancing their taste, and enabling the sweet senses to be

stimulated while consuming a much more nutrient-dense diet.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/6/03 8:15:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

liberty@... writes:

> No, one is seldom as sensitive to that directed

> at another as he is to that directed at himself.

Actually I didn't even realize the post was directed specifically at you, and

it seemed to be touching on topics recently discussed by numerous people, and

thus any of the general comments could have been perceived as directed

against any of these people.

Some people take offense easily; some don't. And some people tend to give

people the benefit of the doubt, and some don't. I don't think I'd have reacted

differently if the message was geared at me.

I know sometimes I take a harsh tone in a debate, but it's of course not

personal in any way.

> He's Buddha, and I'm a drug-addict looking

> for my next fix.

Well, I think that's an exaggeration.

> Of course. If one puts his left hand into a bath of

> warm water, but not the right, and then plunges both

> into a bath of room-temperature water, the left will

> perceive it as colder than will the right. So it is

> obvious that people who survive (barely) on a diet of

> sodas, twinkies and macaroni and cheese are going to

> have their taste for sweetness blunted. However, no

> matter how little sweetener one consumes, or how many

> years one has diligently followed such a diet (I have

> had very little sugar most of my life), neither sea-

> weed tea, nor raw oyster, nor raw beef is ever going

> to be able to take the place, taste-wise, of any of the

> lovely pastries and confections I mentioned, which of

> course can be made, and I do make, much less sweeter

> than their commercial versions. I will continue the

> pursuit of a better tasting sweetener that has no effect

> on blood sugar levels, or any other harmful effect, and

> I will do so without any guilt about it not being " natural " .

> People need to keep in mind that " natural " is a highly

> subjective term, and means different things to different

> people, and according to context.

I agree with this, and also agree with Mike 's second response to you.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 19:10:49 EDT

ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote:

>Furthermore, raw honey was used traditionall to TREAT diabetes before insulin

>was made available, and there is anecdotal evidence that raw honey IMPROVES

>blood sugar.

>

>Chris

>

Oh come on

I brought this up on the board awhile back and you would have thought I

was advocating that animal foods were poisonous, LOL!

[Guest guest]

At 06:50 PM 10/9/2003, you wrote:

>> I have not been able to get a really good picture of

>> WHAT they really ate. A lot of poi, certainly! There

>> has been a move to get the current Hawaiians (who are

>> massively overweight and diabetic) back on the pre-Cook

>> diet, and THOSE folks say the diet was almost vegetarian,

>> very full of fruit and poi.

>

>Are we really to understand that they didn't eat a large

>amount of fish and other seafood? The polynesians also

>brought domesticated pigs and dogs with them when they

>settled these islands, though I don't know if they ate

>the dogs.

Personally I suspect they ate a fair bit if meat also.

But certainly they were not low-carb, nor low

sugar (albeit fruit sugar).

>But I was never hungrier than when I was on a gluten-free

>diet. Nowadays I eat gluten two or three times a week, yet

>never have an issue with wanting to overeat like I did when

>eating no gluten at all, but inadequate amounts of protein.

Interesting. Maybe it fouls it up both ways? I don't process

milk well, and when I was pregnant milk was the ONLY thing

that would make me feel full. But when you cut out gluten,

what did you replace it with? If gluten is neutral, it shouldn't

affect your appetite that much pro or con ... most people

lose their appetite after going GF.

>> if your appetite is working correctly, you just would NOT eat

>> more than you needed on a given day and it wouldn't matter so

>> much whether the food was hi or lo carb.

>

>Maybe that's so, and maybe this appestat of your dreams is

>just that, a dream.

Well, hardly a dream. A lot of healthy people worldwide

eat as much as they feel like, and are not fat or unhealthy.

Like, most of Japan. And me, for most of my life! And

my DH and daughter, now (but not 2 years ago).

> In any case I could just as easily say

>that an appestat is kept in working condition by controlling

>carbohydrate intake, as you can say that is done by excluding

>gluten. I'm very glad that you identified your problem with

>gluten and eliminated it, but it may well be that you don't

>have a problem (yet) with excessive carbohydrate intake, or

>simply that items made with wheat substitutes just don't

>taste as good as the real thing and thus aren't nearly as

>tempting.

Could be ... there needs to be a lot more research done.

" gluten " and " carbs " are synonymous here (though not

so much in Japan until recently).

I cook for 5 adults, and guests, and no one noticed the

change from gluten to non-gluten cooking until I mentioned

it. There is 20 years of research on gluten though, mostly

on purified gluten protein, and it truly messes up the

body's systems.

The domestication and heavy use of sugar cane originally

>took place in India, and later than the neolithic, didn't

>it?

I dunno, someone would have to research it. Most of

what I've read is speculation by people with an anti

sugar bias.

>Don't compare a golden delicious in your market to one

>grown on your granny's farm. Compare it to a crab-apple.

The original apples were totally inedible. But I don't think

that holds for tropical fruits. You see them in National Geo,

being gathered by monkeys ... hard to tell how sweet they

are but they do seem to be enjoying them, and natives

ferment them ... do you have any HARD evidence that

wild jungle fruit are low in sugar?

>My question is, why would they go to so much bother, or

>place so much value on fat, if carbohydrate was just as

>good and more readily available?

I never said carbs were " just as good " . Most humans

like fat when they can get it. Just that there is no evidence

that a high carb diet necessarily is the cause of ill

health. Price found people eating high carb diets and

doing just fine, and people are doing the same today

all over the world.

> The real issue must

>compare not only blood sugar available, but how much of

>it is burned, and how fast it is burned after digestion.

>As I've stated a few times now, I definitely believe that

>people who are working hard throughout the day can tolerate

>a diet much higher in carbohydrates than those who are not.

That is what a lot of people believe. And we definitely eat

too much FOOD in the US, more than our bodies need or

want. But I don't think it is just activity --- I've seen a lot

of fat farmers around here, and the average Japanese

office worker isn't exactly toiling in the field, but eats

lots of high glycemic rice.

Yes, and I also believe that due to millenia of agriculture

>and the effects of punctuated equilibrium, modern humans are

>better adapted to a diet higher in carbohydrate than that of

>the palaeolithic.

Very likely.

>And your idea that gluten can simply replace carbohydrate

>as the culprit is the part that _I_ most disagree with.

>I don't doubt for a minute that a great many people have

>problems with gluten, but it simply can't replace carbo-

>hydrate in all of the equations. I for one, ate very

>little wheat for years because I made most of my food at

>home, and wasn't very good at making bread, but am very

>good at cooking rice. So rice and potatoes were my staple

>starches. In addition, about five years ago, I went on a

>strict gluten-free diet for about a year. I did terribly

>on this diet, and lost alot of weight. Now I must hasten

>to say that I don't atttribute the weight loss to a lack

>of gluten, and there were other factors making the diet a

>bad one. Nevertheless none of the problems later corrected

>by a low-carbohydrate diet were corrected by this diet.

>So I can't believe that they were gluten-induced and not

>caused by excessive carbohydrates.

I don't know what was causing *your* problems ... a diet

that causes you to lose weight (if you didn't need it)

probably wouldn't fix anything, GF or not. If you DO

react to gluten, then you would be malnourished probably,

and would need a nutrient dense diet to heal.

> Also, many cultures

>thrive quite well on a diet high in gluten, and I simply

>can't buy that just adding some wine and olive oil fixes

>it all.

For a person who is reactive, wine and oil doesn't " fix "

it but it does mitigate the reaction.

> In any case, your slogan is really " dump grains "

>not " drink wine with your pasta " .

Not all people need a low gluten diet. Most of the world

does not eat much wheat, until very recently -- it isn't

NEEDED in any sense, though it is hard to avoid in the US.

Only one in 5 people react severely to it. And if a person

has impaired carb metabolism, then maybe they DO need

to go low carb.

But going on a gluten free diet shouldn't have had ANY

major effect on you one way or the other, if you didn't

react to it and were getting enough calories (sounds like

you weren't). If it was a low-calorie GF diet, then gluten

wasn't what was being tested.

I don't know which is the larger problem, gluten or

carbohydrate ... I just know that they have never been

teased apart and they are extremely interactive.

Societies that have carbs and not much gluten

seem to do ok though, and I think that needs to be

considered.

>I have no disagreement with the argument that many people

>are not genetically adapted to gluten.

Which is the crux of the whole thing. About 1/3 of the US

population is genetically not adapted to it (based on genetic

tests at the blood bank) and about 1/5 of people react

to it in ways that are likely effecting their health.

>But can you given an example of a healthy people on a

>high-carbohydrate diet that are not also exercizing

>heavily everyday?

Japanese office worker.

>> Just not American carbs. I could say the same thing about

>> meat -- it has been shown that Americans on high-meat diets

>> have problems.

>

>Has this actually ever been proven? I thought it was no

>more than a matter of the false idea that cholesterol and

>fat were harmful, leading to the idea that meat had to be

>causing America's problems.

Lots of studies come out with numbers that seem to

show red meat causes problems. Part of it is that they

lumped processed meat in there ... but a lot of it is, they

are now thinking, that the average cow meat is high in

the wrong fats, because they are grain fed.

> Yes, but I've known people for decades now, who have been

>vainly trying to chase down the truly organic vegetable,

>beef from cattle never fed grain, raw pastured milk, etc.

>and blaming the continued failure of their diets on the

>fact that the modern world is conspiring to keep them

>from getting truly pristine milk, meat and produce. On

>the other hand however, I've seen alot of people go on

>an Atkins or Hellers type diet,

Which are also low gluten. See what I mean about teasing

the two apart? Now if you get some folks getting healthy

on a high-carb low-gluten diet then that shows something

too (and I meet a lot of THOSE people too).

>while still eating what

>I would call junk food as well as the infamous artificial

>sweeteners mind you, and by merely paying attention to

>the ratio of the macronutrients, improve their health

>quickly, dramatically and in ways that are also measurable

>clinically. If this has nothing to do with what humans

>in the palaeolithic ate, then so be it. So while I don't

>doubt the benefits of high quality foods, or the likelihood

>that many if not most people shouldn't eat gluten, the most

>important factor in my experience and observation, has been

>the limiting of the amount of carbohydrates eaten in a day

>and the frequency that they are eaten in a day.

Well, I absolutely agree with the " frequency " of eating ...

When I said grain fed meats were associated with problems

they are mainly long-term problems. My diet was high

in grain-fed meats for a long time, and they never caused

me any OBVIOUS problems. My Longhorn is much, much

tastier though ...

> I think

>that people should take care of this factor first, and only

>_then_, if possible, " gild the lily " as it were, by making

>their food choices from among the organic, wild, pastured,

>grain-free, etc. because many people are going to have

>difficulty doing both. In the end, most of my " proof " is

>purely anecdotal it is true, based on my own experiences

>and observations, but then so is yours.

The long-term answer will be that the docs will do the

IgA antigliadin blood test routinely, and people who

react to gluten will at least KNOW it (like people KNOW

if they are diabetic, usually, nowadays). If they want to

go low-carb too, that's a choice. But folks who react to gluten

get health problems (cancer, arthritis, lupus, etc.) from it.

If you don't, then fine, eat the

stuff! (It may have other health problems, but those

aren't well researched yet).

Most of my research isn't anecdotal, it's based on 20 years

of lab studies and writings. The fact that such a high

percent of the population is reactive throws off all

the population studies -- if you took out all the reactive

people from the population THEN studied " carbs " you

might get very different numbers. But no one knows yet ...

>

[Guest guest]

At 07:14 PM 10/9/2003, you wrote:

>You are supposed to stop after you have eaten the correct

>> number of calories.

>

>Who says you're supposed to? We don't live in such an

>ideal world. Do people have a natural intuition that

>makes them marry the right person? Just because it

>would be a good thing to have, doesn't make it so.

Isn't there a Price quote, something about no animal in it's

native state, eating native food, is overweight? Really, the

appestat phenomenon is well-researched. People (and animals)

DO know when to quit eating, normally. They eat according

to their activity levels quite exactly. I didn't make it up!

Now MY appestat doesn't work very well, but it used to.

What broke it? That's what I'm trying to figure out.

>You've never travelled in the third world have you.

>They stop because they run out of food, and any food

>they do have they worked very hard to get. In other

>words, there's a lower ratio of carbohydrates consumed

>to carbohydrates burned. I once watched a ino

>friend eat two enormous plates full of rice in about

>five minutes. There was no gluten at all in his dinner.

So was he fat?

According to Ori, we DO gorge when we can. But I had a family of

Philippinos across the street from me, and they ate huge meals.

They did not work any harder than my family. And they were

skinnier. They did not lack food and were not poor. They

may have gorged, but they did not eat more than their bodies

needed.

Remember the fat

>statues of Buddha made by the Chinese? The Chinese

>looked on being fat as a sign of affluence. Think also

>of the vegetarian south Indians who have such bad health.

>They eat virtually no wheat at all, and are eating their

>native and traditional diet, but much less dairy products

>than northerners, and more starch-based foods. Their non-

>vegetarian neighbors who eat plenty of fish, and thus less

>rice, are doing just fine.

Which gets into lack of nutrients ... certainly lack of nutrients is key!

The issue with gluten is that for a lot of folks in interferes with

absorption and so causes an artificial lack of nutrients. Besides

the obvious one that white flour is nutrient-less.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

After I mentioned it here I decided to investigate my own claim a bit

and came up empty. I've seen it mentioned many times though...I don't

know where the information came from. Likely from a CR source (Roy

Walford?). In any case, the GM mice study is not a study against

CRON...simply another way to achieve longevity. And since we have not

yet engineered special insulin receptor sites in humans...CR remains a

valid alternative. CR is likely simply correlated with another life

extension mechanism (Mercola suggests Insulin).

-

> In a message dated 10/12/03 7:01:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

> paultheo2000@y... writes:

>

> > I believe skinny people (who consume large amounts of calories) are

> > referred to as possessing a thrifty metabolism. I was also under the

> > impression that these people lived LESS long than they're more

weighty

> > counterparts. This ties in with the whole Calorie Restriction

deal. If

> > you're eating and eating and eating without gaining weight several

> > metabolic processes must be on overload.

>

> ,

>

> If this is true with humans, it apparently isn't with mice. The GM

mice that

> had low bodyfat ate significantly MORE calories of the same food

than the

> control mice, yet had similar life-lengthening benefits as

calorie-restricted

> mice. So that is a BIG point *against* calorie-restriction,

assuming the

> experiment can be replicated with similar results.

>

> If you have any evidence slim people live a shorter life than heavy

people,

> I'd find this very surprising and would be interested to see it.

>

> Chris

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 15:22:44 -0700

Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@...> wrote:

>

>In commenting on the Inuit diet, Steffanson said that while it SEEMS like it

>would be monotonous, it wasn't, and they never got tired of fish day in

>and day out. He wrote at length about that. I suspect that " monotony "

>really signals " I'm missing a nutrient " . Your taste buds are really your

>body's way of controlling you ... if your body wants it, it will taste

>good!

This is true but he also said that it took his men several months to

make the adjustment. Up until that point they complained big time. After

that point you couldn't get them to go back to the old ways.

>

>Which is why a heroin addict can think that jabbing oneself

>with a needle feels GOOD too. Or why people crave sweets or salt.

>But it works in a good direction also ... if a diet of raw fish is

>balanced and you are adapted to it, you might constantly

>crave raw fish and nothing but raw fish.

Only problem is that neither his men nor the Eskimos he hung out with

ate nothing but raw fish. Boiled fish and fermented whale oil were often

on the menu, at least when he was among the Eskimos.

The People vs. Rush Limbaugh

http://tinyurl.com/qon2

[Guest guest]

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 12:52:00 -0400

ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote:

>In a message dated 10/9/2003 11:50:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

slethnobotanist@... writes:

>

>> I brought this up on the board awhile back and you would

>> have thought I

>> was advocating that animal foods were poisonous, LOL!

>

>eh?

>

>Chris

Yes the idea that honey can be used in the treatment of diabetes or can

help with blood sugar problems is difficult for many folks to believe.

The People vs. Rush Limbaugh

http://tinyurl.com/qon2

[Guest guest]

>>In commenting on the Inuit diet, Steffanson said that while it SEEMS like it

>>would be monotonous, it wasn't, and they never got tired of fish day in

>>and day out. He wrote at length about that. I suspect that " monotony "

>>really signals " I'm missing a nutrient " . Your taste buds are really your

>>body's way of controlling you ... if your body wants it, it will taste

>>good!

>

>This is true but he also said that it took his men several months to

>make the adjustment. Up until that point they complained big time. After

>that point you couldn't get them to go back to the old ways.

Oh, well, there is that. He also said that they were REALLY looking

forward to eating " normal " when they got back to civilization ...

until they tried it. But as far as monotony ... I've lived off

the same foods for years at a time quite happily, mostly out

of habit and satisfaction. When I start feeling " bored " it is usually

a signal of something else ...anxiety, need, jealousy even.

>>Which is why a heroin addict can think that jabbing oneself

>>with a needle feels GOOD too. Or why people crave sweets or salt.

>>But it works in a good direction also ... if a diet of raw fish is

>>balanced and you are adapted to it, you might constantly

>>crave raw fish and nothing but raw fish.

>

>Only problem is that neither his men nor the Eskimos he hung out with

>ate nothing but raw fish. Boiled fish and fermented whale oil were often

>on the menu, at least when he was among the Eskimos.

I wasn't meaning it literally. They actually ate some variety, like fermented

seal oil too. Again, I'm just saying that it isn't " the same food " that really

triggers monotony, usually. I can think of some guys that live off pizza and

beer rather happily too.

--- Heidi

[Guest guest]

-

>Yes the idea that honey can be used in the treatment of diabetes or can

>help with blood sugar problems is difficult for many folks to believe.

Unfortunately, even the highest quality raw honey gives me severe blood

sugar problems. Granted, I don't have diabetes, but I'm extremely

hypoglycemic (at least when I don't eat lots of animal fat and eschew most

carbs).

-