Artificial sweeteners’ sour note

[i***@aol.com]

Artificial sweeteners’ sour note

BY DEBORAH NETBURN
9/18/2014


Diet sodas and those packets of artificial sweetener you put in your
coffee may not be as benign as we thought, a new study suggests.

High doses of artificial sweeteners such as saccharin, sucralose and
aspartame can change the population of healthy gut bacteria in mice, and
in some humans. That makes it harder for their bodies to metabolize
sugar, according to a study published Wednesday in the journal Nature.

“These results should prompt additional study and debate on the massive
use of artificial sweeteners,” said Eran Segal, a computational
biologist at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel and a senior
author of the paper.

Artificial sweeteners are not digested by the human body, which is why
they have no calories. However, they still must pass through our
gastrointestinal tract, where they encounter the vast ecosystem of
bacteria that thrive in our guts. These bacteria play an important role
in our physiology, including how we process glucose and other sugars.

To find out whether artificial sweeteners affect healthy gut bacteria,
the researchers embarked on a series of experiments.

First they added saccharine, sucralose or aspartame to the drinking
water of different groups of mice. Other groups of mice got real sugar
in their water, and a control group got plain water.

After 11 weeks, the mice that got artificial sweeteners showed higher
levels of glucose intolerance compared with the others — a sign that
their bodies were doing a worse job of processing sugar. This causes
blood sugar to be too high, often a precursor to Type 2 diabetes.

To see whether the gut microbiome had anything to do with the link
between drinking artificial sweeteners and developing glucose
intolerance, the researchers gave the mice antibiotics to wipe out their
gut bacteria. After that, all the groups were able to metabolize sugar
equally well.

Next, the researchers transplanted gut bacteria from mice that had
consumed saccharin into mice that had no gut bacteria of their own. Six
days later, those mice had lost some of their ability to process sugar.

Genetic analysis revealed that the composition of the gut bacteria in
mice had indeed changed after exposure to the artificial sweetener —
some types of bacteria became more abundant, while others shrank.

The most obvious question is whether artificial sweeteners would have
the same effect in humans. The researchers made some preliminary
attempts to answer this question.

First, they looked at a group of 381 people who are involved in an
ongoing clinical nutritional study and found that the gut bacteria of
those who regularly consumed artificial sweeteners looked different from
those who did not. They also found correlations between people who use
artificial sweetener and those who weighed more and had higher fasting
blood sugar, a condition that can cause heart problems, kidney disease,
eye issues and other health problems.

But they couldn’t say that either artificial sweeteners or gut bacteria
were causing weight gain or high blood sugar levels. (It should be noted
that the InterAct study of 350,000 people in Europe found no
relationship between artificial sweetener consumption and any health
problems.)

Finally, the researchers gave seven people high doses of artificial
sweeteners

— the equivalent of 40 cans of diet soda a day. By the end of the week,
four of them lost some of their ability to metabolize sugar. The other
three saw no change.

Although the human aspect of this study is interesting, it is far from
conclusive, other researchers said.

Sridevi Devaraj, an associate director of Texas Children’s Microbiome
Center in Houston, said she would like to know whether the pre-diabetes
symptoms that the mice developed after consuming artificial sweeteners
would lead to full-blown diabetes over time.

“The jury is still out with regards to whether these sweeteners actually
cause weight gain,” said Devaraj, who was not involved in the new
research. “It begs for a really good study in humans.”

The original researchers agree. “We are not at the point to make a
change, but we are at a point to promote discussion in the medical,
scientific and general community,” said Weizmann’s Dr. Eran Elinav, the
co-senior author of the study.

***@latimes.com

[mainframetech]

Artificial sweeteners' sour note
BY DEBORAH NETBURN
9/18/2014
Diet sodas and those packets of artificial sweetener you put in your
coffee may not be as benign as we thought, a new study suggests.
High doses of artificial sweeteners such as saccharin, sucralose and
aspartame can change the population of healthy gut bacteria in mice, and
in some humans. That makes it harder for their bodies to metabolize
sugar, according to a study published Wednesday in the journal Nature.
"These results should prompt additional study and debate on the massive
use of artificial sweeteners," said Eran Segal, a computational
biologist at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel and a senior
author of the paper.
Artificial sweeteners are not digested by the human body, which is why
they have no calories. However, they still must pass through our
gastrointestinal tract, where they encounter the vast ecosystem of
bacteria that thrive in our guts. These bacteria play an important role
in our physiology, including how we process glucose and other sugars.
To find out whether artificial sweeteners affect healthy gut bacteria,
the researchers embarked on a series of experiments.
First they added saccharine, sucralose or aspartame to the drinking
water of different groups of mice. Other groups of mice got real sugar
in their water, and a control group got plain water.
After 11 weeks, the mice that got artificial sweeteners showed higher
levels of glucose intolerance compared with the others -- a sign that
their bodies were doing a worse job of processing sugar. This causes
blood sugar to be too high, often a precursor to Type 2 diabetes.
To see whether the gut microbiome had anything to do with the link
between drinking artificial sweeteners and developing glucose
intolerance, the researchers gave the mice antibiotics to wipe out their
gut bacteria. After that, all the groups were able to metabolize sugar
equally well.
Next, the researchers transplanted gut bacteria from mice that had
consumed saccharin into mice that had no gut bacteria of their own. Six
days later, those mice had lost some of their ability to process sugar.
Genetic analysis revealed that the composition of the gut bacteria in
mice had indeed changed after exposure to the artificial sweetener --
some types of bacteria became more abundant, while others shrank.
The most obvious question is whether artificial sweeteners would have
the same effect in humans. The researchers made some preliminary
attempts to answer this question.
First, they looked at a group of 381 people who are involved in an
ongoing clinical nutritional study and found that the gut bacteria of
those who regularly consumed artificial sweeteners looked different from
those who did not. They also found correlations between people who use
artificial sweetener and those who weighed more and had higher fasting
blood sugar, a condition that can cause heart problems, kidney disease,
eye issues and other health problems.
But they couldn't say that either artificial sweeteners or gut bacteria
were causing weight gain or high blood sugar levels. (It should be noted
that the InterAct study of 350,000 people in Europe found no
relationship between artificial sweetener consumption and any health
problems.)
Finally, the researchers gave seven people high doses of artificial
sweeteners
-- the equivalent of 40 cans of diet soda a day. By the end of the week,
four of them lost some of their ability to metabolize sugar. The other
three saw no change.
Although the human aspect of this study is interesting, it is far from
conclusive, other researchers said.
Sridevi Devaraj, an associate director of Texas Children's Microbiome
Center in Houston, said she would like to know whether the pre-diabetes
symptoms that the mice developed after consuming artificial sweeteners
would lead to full-blown diabetes over time.
"The jury is still out with regards to whether these sweeteners actually
cause weight gain," said Devaraj, who was not involved in the new
research. "It begs for a really good study in humans."
The original researchers agree. "We are not at the point to make a
change, but we are at a point to promote discussion in the medical,
scientific and general community," said Weizmann's Dr. Eran Elinav, the
co-senior author of the study.

I'm glad to see that some consciousness raising is going on with the phony sweeteners. Seems like a simple study could be formed to question folks as to whether they had diabetes and what sweeteners they used for long periods of time. I wonder if a correlation might come up.

Given that all false sweeteners have had various negatives promoted about them at one time or another.

Chris

[Ozlover]

phony/false mainframetech <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]

Post by mainframetech
I'm glad to see that some consciousness raising is going on with the
phony sweeteners. Seems like a simple study could be formed to
question folks as to whether they had diabetes and what sweeteners
they used for long periods of time. I wonder if a correlation might
come up.

s/correlation/conspiracy theory/

BURB! Sorry, but those *FOURTY* cans of soda per *DAY* are getting to
me.

Post by mainframetech
Given that all false sweeteners have had various negatives promoted
about them at one time or another.

s/negatives promoted/nutcases talking/

Post by mainframetech
Chris

QED.

[mainframetech]

hmm. Someone doesn't want to be reminded about the negatives of the false sweeteners methinks. Maybe a user?

Chris

[randyf]

On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 15:15:46 -0700 (PDT), mainframetech

Post by mainframetech
hmm. Someone doesn't want to be reminded about the negatives of the false sweeteners methinks. Maybe a user?

Not just Someone, but lots of folks in this group use artificial
sweeterners.. Unlike you (that don't have high glucose issues), many
folks here look to avoid fast absorbed sources of
glucose/fructose/calories


You seem to forget that folks on ASD are interested in keeping their
bg levels down. They are not interested in your *hobby*.

Randy

Post by mainframetech
Chris

[Don Roberto]

Post by randyf
On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 15:15:46 -0700 (PDT), mainframetech

Post by mainframetech
hmm. Someone doesn't want to be reminded about the negatives of the false sweeteners methinks. Maybe a user?

Not just Someone, but lots of folks in this group use artificial
sweeterners.. Unlike you (that don't have high glucose issues), many
folks here look to avoid fast absorbed sources of
glucose/fructose/calories
You seem to forget that folks on ASD are interested in keeping their
bg levels down. They are not interested in your *hobby*.

And *THEN* righteous ranting Randy tries to claim that it's always *the*
*other* *guy* who started with the nasty stuff.

NEVER he - righteous ranting Randy!
NEVER EVER!

[Ozlover]

Post by Don Roberto

Post by randyf
On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 15:15:46 -0700 (PDT), mainframetech

Post by mainframetech
hmm. Someone doesn't want to be reminded about the negatives of the false sweeteners methinks. Maybe a user?

Not just Someone, but lots of folks in this group use artificial
sweeterners.. Unlike you (that don't have high glucose issues), many
folks here look to avoid fast absorbed sources of
glucose/fructose/calories
You seem to forget that folks on ASD are interested in keeping their
bg levels down. They are not interested in your *hobby*.

And *THEN* righteous ranting Randy tries to claim that it's always *the*
*other* *guy* who started with the nasty stuff.

Well in this case it clearly was the other guy and - as you know full
well - for *this* other guy, it always is. That that fact doesn't suit
your agenda is a bummer for you, but doesn't change it.

[Don Roberto]

Post by Ozlover

Post by Don Roberto

Post by randyf
On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 15:15:46 -0700 (PDT), mainframetech

Post by mainframetech
hmm. Someone doesn't want to be reminded about the negatives of the false sweeteners methinks. Maybe a user?

Not just Someone, but lots of folks in this group use artificial
sweeterners.. Unlike you (that don't have high glucose issues), many
folks here look to avoid fast absorbed sources of
glucose/fructose/calories
You seem to forget that folks on ASD are interested in keeping their
bg levels down. They are not interested in your *hobby*.

And *THEN* righteous ranting Randy tries to claim that it's always *the*
*other* *guy* who started with the nasty stuff.

Well in this case it clearly was the other guy and - as you know full
well - for *this* other guy, it always is. That that fact doesn't suit
your agenda is a bummer for you, but doesn't change it.

Perhaps we define "nasty stuff" differently? Or perhaps one of us takes
each conversation as an island not connected to any of the other islands
here?

Chris posts a lots of paranoid hooey, but he tries to keep it polite.
Not so righteous ranting Randy. Once he spots a fly buzzing about and
threatening the precious order of the itty bitty box he vegetates in, he
brings out his verbal fly swatter. And he is very unforgiving - once
anyone has seriously doubted his supremacy in matters of science, the
infidel will be a persona non grata till kingdom come and then some.

Facts can be such pesky things...

Don Roberto

[r***@val.com]

Post by Don Roberto
Perhaps we define "nasty stuff" differently?

That's definitely the case. Sadly, your definition is only accepted by
a very small minority (comprised of misanthropes, sociopath's and
numerous flavors of goners).

Post by Don Roberto
Or perhaps one of us takes
each conversation as an island not connected to any of the other islands
here?
Chris posts a lots of paranoid hooey, but he tries to keep it polite.
Not so righteous ranting Randy.

And that is demonstratively false (achieves). My tone has matched
mainframe's over the years and HAS NEVER come close to the personal,
demeaning insults you've spewed his way.

For anyone that's interested you can check out the origins of our
exchanges here:
Some Supplements I take..... 1/6/12
Vitamin D and MS 2/26/13
Question for the Group 2/26/12

Keep a eye out for Mainframe's *politeness* and my *nastiness*.

On the other hand, for real examples of nastiness check out Bob's
comments towards mainframetech here::
Exercise + Statins better than either alone 2/15//13, 2/16/13

Not to mention his recently referenced post to his, boring, mean
spirited repetition of mainframetechs activity on other groups.

Post by Don Roberto
Once he spots a fly buzzing about and
threatening the precious order of the itty bitty box he vegetates in, he
brings out his verbal fly swatter. And he is very unforgiving - once
anyone has seriously doubted his supremacy in matters of science, the
infidel will be a persona non grata till kingdom come and then some.
Facts can be such pesky things...

Yep, especially for folks that pretend/image/lie that said facts
exist.

Randy

Post by Don Roberto
Don Roberto

[Ozlover]

Post by Don Roberto

Post by Ozlover

Post by Don Roberto

Post by randyf
On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 15:15:46 -0700 (PDT), mainframetech

Post by mainframetech
hmm. Someone doesn't want to be reminded about the negatives of the false sweeteners methinks. Maybe a user?

Not just Someone, but lots of folks in this group use artificial
sweeterners.. Unlike you (that don't have high glucose issues), many
folks here look to avoid fast absorbed sources of
glucose/fructose/calories
You seem to forget that folks on ASD are interested in keeping their
bg levels down. They are not interested in your *hobby*.

And *THEN* righteous ranting Randy tries to claim that it's always *the*
*other* *guy* who started with the nasty stuff.

Well in this case it clearly was the other guy and - as you know full
well - for *this* other guy, it always is. That that fact doesn't suit
your agenda is a bummer for you, but doesn't change it.

Perhaps we define "nasty stuff" differently? Or perhaps one of us takes
each conversation as an island not connected to any of the other islands
here?
Chris posts a lots of paranoid hooey, but he tries to keep it polite.

Well, his response

Post by Don Roberto

Post by Ozlover

Post by Don Roberto

Post by randyf

Post by mainframetech
hmm. Someone doesn't want to be reminded about the negatives of
the false sweeteners methinks. Maybe a user?

wasn't 'polite' and was nasty and came before Randy's response. And that
wasn't an occasional slip, but just more of the same of mainframetech's
MO.

[...]

[Don Roberto]

Post by Ozlover

Post by Don Roberto

Post by Ozlover

Post by Don Roberto

Post by randyf
On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 15:15:46 -0700 (PDT), mainframetech

Post by mainframetech
hmm. Someone doesn't want to be reminded about the negatives of the false sweeteners methinks. Maybe a user?

Not just Someone, but lots of folks in this group use artificial
sweeterners.. Unlike you (that don't have high glucose issues), many
folks here look to avoid fast absorbed sources of
glucose/fructose/calories
You seem to forget that folks on ASD are interested in keeping their
bg levels down. They are not interested in your *hobby*.

And *THEN* righteous ranting Randy tries to claim that it's always *the*
*other* *guy* who started with the nasty stuff.

Well in this case it clearly was the other guy and - as you know full
well - for *this* other guy, it always is. That that fact doesn't suit
your agenda is a bummer for you, but doesn't change it.

Perhaps we define "nasty stuff" differently? Or perhaps one of us takes
each conversation as an island not connected to any of the other islands
here?
Chris posts a lots of paranoid hooey, but he tries to keep it polite.

Well, his response

Post by Don Roberto

Post by Ozlover

Post by Don Roberto

Post by randyf

Post by mainframetech
hmm. Someone doesn't want to be reminded about the negatives of
the false sweeteners methinks. Maybe a user?

wasn't 'polite' and was nasty and came before Randy's response. And that
wasn't an occasional slip, but just more of the same of mainframetech's
MO.

We *DO* define "nasty stuff" differently!
The above is outright right nice compared to Randy's attitude once
someone seriously questions his "superior intellect".

And he bears grudges to the point of insanity: he once made it clear
that once someone has provoked his ire he will have it in for such a
person till the end of time, regardless of what such a person posts
subsequently. Although I do suspect that if someone sucked up to him for
months on end, and begged his forgiveness, he might relent....
...naah, he'd just claim the perp was faking his remorse.


Don Roberto
------------------------------
To live is to war with trolls.
--Henrik Ibsen

[Ozlover]

Post by Don Roberto

Post by Ozlover

Post by Don Roberto

Post by Ozlover

Post by Don Roberto

Post by randyf
On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 15:15:46 -0700 (PDT), mainframetech

Post by mainframetech
hmm. Someone doesn't want to be reminded about the negatives of the false sweeteners methinks. Maybe a user?

Not just Someone, but lots of folks in this group use artificial
sweeterners.. Unlike you (that don't have high glucose issues), many
folks here look to avoid fast absorbed sources of
glucose/fructose/calories
You seem to forget that folks on ASD are interested in keeping their
bg levels down. They are not interested in your *hobby*.

And *THEN* righteous ranting Randy tries to claim that it's always *the*
*other* *guy* who started with the nasty stuff.

Well in this case it clearly was the other guy and - as you know full
well - for *this* other guy, it always is. That that fact doesn't suit
your agenda is a bummer for you, but doesn't change it.

Perhaps we define "nasty stuff" differently? Or perhaps one of us takes
each conversation as an island not connected to any of the other islands
here?
Chris posts a lots of paranoid hooey, but he tries to keep it polite.

Well, his response

Post by Don Roberto

Post by Ozlover

Post by Don Roberto

Post by randyf

Post by mainframetech
hmm. Someone doesn't want to be reminded about the negatives of
the false sweeteners methinks. Maybe a user?

wasn't 'polite' and was nasty and came before Randy's response. And that
wasn't an occasional slip, but just more of the same of mainframetech's
MO.

We *DO* define "nasty stuff" differently!
The above is outright right nice compared to Randy's attitude once
someone seriously questions his "superior intellect".
And he bears grudges to the point of insanity: he once made it clear
that once someone has provoked his ire he will have it in for such a
person till the end of time, regardless of what such a person posts
subsequently. Although I do suspect that if someone sucked up to him for
months on end, and begged his forgiveness, he might relent....
...naah, he'd just claim the perp was faking his remorse.

For an outsider (oops!) your pot-kettle-black (better?) rants such as
the above one are quite funny.

[r***@val.com]

On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 19:22:32 -0700, Don Roberto

Post by Don Roberto

Post by randyf
On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 15:15:46 -0700 (PDT), mainframetech

Post by mainframetech
hmm. Someone doesn't want to be reminded about the negatives of the false sweeteners methinks. Maybe a user?

Not just Someone, but lots of folks in this group use artificial
sweeterners.. Unlike you (that don't have high glucose issues), many
folks here look to avoid fast absorbed sources of
glucose/fructose/calories
You seem to forget that folks on ASD are interested in keeping their
bg levels down. They are not interested in your *hobby*.

And *THEN* righteous ranting Randy tries to claim that it's always *the*
*other* *guy* who started with the nasty stuff.

Another demonstration of you comprehension problems.
There wasn't any *nastiness* involved. Everything I said above is true
and Not personal. As far as tone goes, mainframe works at upping his
animosity every chance he gets. This goes back a couple of years with
his claim of my *whipping the board* to censor his posts.

What's rich is your accusation of nastiness, when your the nastiest
poster on ASD - hands down. I don't know if your bereft of any self
insight or just don't give a damn about publicly demonstarting what a
;hypocrite you are.

Calling folks - turds, pissants, pieces of shit, dumb old farts
Telling folks - *to eat yellow snow*
- That's Nasty.

Randy

Post by Don Roberto
NEVER he - righteous ranting Randy!
NEVER EVER!

[mainframetech]

Post by randyf
Not just Someone, but lots of folks in this group use artificial
sweeterners.. Unlike you (that don't have high glucose issues), many
folks here look to avoid fast absorbed sources of
glucose/fructose/calories

As usual you tend to blat out your comments before asking the person about their situation. You assume too much. In fact my physician is concerned about my levels of triglycerides, and is always at me about keeping them further down by eliminating sweets and other dietary efforts. Part of the reason he's always looking for me to get diabetes, as I've explained before.

I haven't forgotten the interests of people in this group. However, we all have an interest in good health. And some of us have an interest in not being taken around the bend by studies alone without other methods of information gathering that help to make them more believable. Since so many drug makers get fined for manipulating information, including studies.

You would do much better to not try to represent everyone in this group, since you don't. Acting like you do has gotten you in trouble before. Why not calm yourself down and act like others?

Chris

[Don Roberto]

Post by mainframetech

Post by randyf
Not just Someone, but lots of folks in this group use artificial
sweeterners.. Unlike you (that don't have high glucose issues), many
folks here look to avoid fast absorbed sources of
glucose/fructose/calories

As usual you tend to blat out your comments before asking the person about their situation. You assume too much. In fact my physician is concerned about my levels of triglycerides, and is always at me about keeping them further down by eliminating sweets and other dietary efforts. Part of the reason he's always looking for me to get diabetes, as I've explained before.
I haven't forgotten the interests of people in this group. However, we all have an interest in good health. And some of us have an interest in not being taken around the bend by studies alone without other methods of information gathering that help to make them more believable. Since so many drug makers get fined for manipulating information, including studies.
You would do much better to not try to represent everyone in this group, since you don't. Acting like you do has gotten you in trouble before. Why not calm yourself down and act like others?
Chris

+1
Are you paying attention, Frank?
Righteous ranting Randy could never get as civil as this after someone
got onto his case.

Don Roberto
----------------------------------
Strange how paranoia can link up with reality now and then.
--Philip K. Dick, A Scanner Darkly

[Ozlover]

Post by Don Roberto

Post by mainframetech

Post by randyf
Not just Someone, but lots of folks in this group use artificial
sweeterners.. Unlike you (that don't have high glucose issues), many
folks here look to avoid fast absorbed sources of
glucose/fructose/calories

As usual you tend to blat out your comments before asking the person about their situation. You assume too much. In fact my physician is concerned about my levels of triglycerides, and is always at me about keeping them further down by eliminating sweets and other dietary efforts. Part of the reason he's always looking for me to get diabetes, as I've explained before.
I haven't forgotten the interests of people in this group. However, we all have an interest in good health. And some of us have an interest in not being taken around the bend by studies alone without other methods of information gathering that help to make them more believable. Since so many drug makers get fined for manipulating information, including studies.
You would do much better to not try to represent everyone in this group, since you don't. Acting like you do has gotten you in trouble before. Why not calm yourself down and act like others?
Chris

+1
Are you paying attention, Frank?
Righteous ranting Randy could never get as civil as this after someone
got onto his case.

Yes, I'm paying attention, and what I still mainly see is someone
still playing the 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' game.

And mainframetech isn't 'civil' and neither are you, so PKB.

[Don Roberto]

Post by Ozlover

Post by Don Roberto

Post by mainframetech

Post by randyf
Not just Someone, but lots of folks in this group use artificial
sweeterners.. Unlike you (that don't have high glucose issues), many
folks here look to avoid fast absorbed sources of
glucose/fructose/calories

As usual you tend to blat out your comments before asking the person about their situation. You assume too much. In fact my physician is concerned about my levels of triglycerides, and is always at me about keeping them further down by eliminating sweets and other dietary efforts. Part of the reason he's always looking for me to get diabetes, as I've explained before.
I haven't forgotten the interests of people in this group. However, we all have an interest in good health. And some of us have an interest in not being taken around the bend by studies alone without other methods of information gathering that help to make them more believable. Since so many drug makers get fined for manipulating information, including studies.
You would do much better to not try to represent everyone in this group, since you don't. Acting like you do has gotten you in trouble before. Why not calm yourself down and act like others?
Chris

+1
Are you paying attention, Frank?
Righteous ranting Randy could never get as civil as this after someone
got onto his case.

Yes, I'm paying attention, and what I still mainly see is someone
still playing the 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' game.

I don't play such silly simple games:
Paranoid Chris has never been my friend and if you wouldn't miss out on
half the asd crap during you trips down under, you'd know that:
I've been down on paranoid Chris conspiracy crap almost as much as the
unqualified rants of righteous ranting Randy trying to establish himself
as the supreme authority all all matters of science and technology here.

Post by Ozlover
And mainframetech isn't 'civil' and neither are you, so PKB.

The post from Chris I was referring to WAS CIVIL.
As for yours truly - it's always a tit for tat situation, where yours
truly always represents the "tat" part.

BTW :-) your overindulgence of acronyms makes you come across as an
immature nerd.

Don Roberto
------------------------------
To live is to war with trolls.
--Henrik Ibsen

[r***@val.com]

On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 04:36:00 -0700, Don Roberto

Post by Don Roberto

Post by Ozlover

Post by Don Roberto
Are you paying attention, Frank?
Righteous ranting Randy could never get as civil as this after someone
got onto his case.

Yes, I'm paying attention, and what I still mainly see is someone
still playing the 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' game.

Ha - that's all you do.

Post by Don Roberto
Paranoid Chris has never been my friend and if you wouldn't miss out on

What else you'd know (and you probably do) is that Bob has been by far
the nastiest poster to mainframe of anyone here. It's in the
Archives.and been referenced.

Post by Don Roberto
The post from Chris I was referring to WAS CIVIL.

And the post from Randy(me) wasn't UNCIVIL.
I said:
1. Mainframetech does not have diabetes.
2. Uses ASD for his hobby discussing various flavors of *conspiracies*
This have ranged from Vaccinations, autism, off beat cancer cures and
such.
AND - I personally have No problem with That. He free to do that.
AND - The fact that I mention the above is Not uncivil.

For real samples of NASTY and uncivality directed towards mainfreme,
refer to the links that have been provided.

Randy

[Don Roberto]

Post by r***@val.com
On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 04:36:00 -0700, Don Roberto

Post by Don Roberto

Post by Ozlover

Post by Don Roberto
Are you paying attention, Frank?
Righteous ranting Randy could never get as civil as this after someone
got onto his case.

Yes, I'm paying attention, and what I still mainly see is someone
still playing the 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' game.

Ha - that's all you do.

Post by Don Roberto
Paranoid Chris has never been my friend and if you wouldn't miss out on

What else you'd know (and you probably do) is that Bob has been by far
the nastiest poster to mainframe of anyone here. It's in the
Archives.and been referenced.

Post by Don Roberto
The post from Chris I was referring to WAS CIVIL.

And the post from Randy(me) wasn't UNCIVIL.

Of course not. After all, righteous ranting Randy says so

Post by r***@val.com
1. Mainframetech does not have diabetes.
2. Uses ASD for his hobby discussing various flavors of *conspiracies*
This have ranged from Vaccinations, autism, off beat cancer cures and
such.
AND - I personally have No problem with That. He free to do that.
AND - The fact that I mention the above is Not uncivil.

Of course not. After all, righteous ranting Randy says so

Post by r***@val.com
For real samples of NASTY and uncivality directed towards mainfreme,
refer to the links that have been provided.

But why aren't yours ever included with "the links that have been provided"?
Is that because whenever you - righteous ranting Randy - call someone,
say, an idiot - as you did with Mack - it's not personal, as you have so
idiotically proclaimed?
Links have been provided for *that* too.


Don Roberto
------------------------------
Kann ein Troll schwimmen?
Im Prinzip ja, er ist ja hohl.
Trotzdem wird er untergehen,
weil er nicht ganz dicht ist.

[r***@val.com]

Post by Don Roberto

Post by r***@val.com

Post by Don Roberto
The post from Chris I was referring to WAS CIVIL.

And the post from Randy(me) wasn't UNCIVIL.

Of course not. After all, righteous ranting Randy says so

More yakking and nothing else.

Post by Don Roberto

Post by r***@val.com
1. Mainframetech does not have diabetes.
2. Uses ASD for his hobby discussing various flavors of *conspiracies*
This have ranged from Vaccinations, autism, off beat cancer cures and
such.
AND - I personally have No problem with That. He free to do that.
AND - The fact that I mention the above is Not uncivil.

Of course not. After all, righteous ranting Randy says so

More repetitious yakking.

Post by Don Roberto

Post by r***@val.com
For real samples of NASTY and uncivality directed towards mainfreme,
refer to the links that have been provided.

But why aren't yours ever included with "the links that have been provided"?
Is that because whenever you - righteous ranting Randy - call someone,
say, an idiot - as you did with Mack - it's not personal, as you have so
idiotically proclaimed?

Yep I'll gladly stand by that post of mine in comparison to yours.

Post by Don Roberto
Links have been provided for *that* too.

Yes, present that one again and I'll repost to ones I referenced to
you past and any ones that interested can compare.

[Don Roberto]

Post by r***@val.com

Post by Don Roberto

Post by r***@val.com

Post by Don Roberto
The post from Chris I was referring to WAS CIVIL.

And the post from Randy(me) wasn't UNCIVIL.

Of course not. After all, righteous ranting Randy says so

More yakking and nothing else.

Yep. That's you - like in:
"You are uncivil"
"No, I'm not"
"Yes, you are"
"No, I'm not"
Ad infinitum.
Yak, yak, yak and nothing else.

Post by r***@val.com

Post by Don Roberto

Post by r***@val.com
1. Mainframetech does not have diabetes.
2. Uses ASD for his hobby discussing various flavors of *conspiracies*
This have ranged from Vaccinations, autism, off beat cancer cures and
such.
AND - I personally have No problem with That. He free to do that.
AND - The fact that I mention the above is Not uncivil.

Of course not. After all, righteous ranting Randy says so

More repetitious yakking.

Post by Don Roberto

Post by r***@val.com
For real samples of NASTY and uncivality directed towards mainfreme,
refer to the links that have been provided.

But why aren't yours ever included with "the links that have been provided"?
Is that because whenever you - righteous ranting Randy - call someone,
say, an idiot - as you did with Mack - it's not personal, as you have so
idiotically proclaimed?

Yep I'll gladly stand by that post of mine in comparison to yours.

Post by Don Roberto
Links have been provided for *that* too.

Yes, present that one again and I'll repost to ones I referenced to
you past and any ones that interested can compare.

Nope.
*BUT* I'll gladly repost some of Augustine of Hippo's words:

"And yet, will we ever come to an end of discussion and talk if we think
we must always reply to replies? For replies come from those who either
cannot understand what is said to them, or are so stubborn and
contentious that they refuse to give in even if they do understand."
-- Augustine of Hippo, City of God


Don Roberto

[Gys de Jongh]

Post by Don Roberto
I'll gladly repost some of Augustine of Hippo's words

but did Augustine or his horse suffered from dyjabeetus ?
was it the fat, self inflicted, dyjabeetus dokters know nothing about ?
was the horse cured by sucralose ?

[Don Roberto]

Post by Gys de Jongh

Post by Don Roberto
I'll gladly repost some of Augustine of Hippo's words

but did Augustine or his horse suffered from dyjabeetus ?
was it the fat, self inflicted, dyjabeetus dokters know nothing about ?
was the horse cured by sucralose ?

Don't ever quit asking questions, Gys!

[Ozlover]

Post by Don Roberto

Post by Ozlover

Post by Don Roberto

Post by mainframetech

Post by randyf
Not just Someone, but lots of folks in this group use artificial
sweeterners.. Unlike you (that don't have high glucose issues), many
folks here look to avoid fast absorbed sources of
glucose/fructose/calories

As usual you tend to blat out your comments before asking the
person about their situation. You assume too much. In fact my
physician is concerned about my levels of triglycerides, and is
always at me about keeping them further down by eliminating sweets
and other dietary efforts. Part of the reason he's always looking
for me to get diabetes, as I've explained before.
I haven't forgotten the interests of people in this group.
However, we all have an interest in good health. And some of us
have an interest in not being taken around the bend by studies
alone without other methods of information gathering that help to
make them more believable. Since so many drug makers get fined
for manipulating information, including studies.
You would do much better to not try to represent everyone in
this group, since you don't. Acting like you do has gotten you in
trouble before. Why not calm yourself down and act like others?
Chris

+1
Are you paying attention, Frank?
Righteous ranting Randy could never get as civil as this after someone
got onto his case.

Yes, I'm paying attention, and what I still mainly see is someone
still playing the 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' game.

Your posts clearly show that you do.

Post by Don Roberto
Paranoid Chris has never been my friend and if you wouldn't miss out on
I've been down on paranoid Chris conspiracy crap almost as much as the
unqualified rants of righteous ranting Randy trying to establish himself
as the supreme authority all all matters of science and technology here.

'my enemy's enemy is my friend' is a figure of speech and not an
absolute. It's clear that at times you'll go easy on mainframetech if
(you think) he gives you ammunition to go down on Randy. And yes, at
other times. you go down on mainframetech.

Post by Don Roberto

Post by Ozlover
And mainframetech isn't 'civil' and neither are you, so PKB.

The post from Chris I was referring to WAS CIVIL.

No it wasn't civil. Yes, it did not use coarse language, but that does
not preclude it from being uncivil. The other Chris (ToC) was a 'master'
in that area, being very uncivil and worse, by only using 'civil'
language. But don't take my word for it, ask your BFF.

Post by Don Roberto
As for yours truly - it's always a tit for tat situation, where yours
truly always represents the "tat" part.

Yeah right, dream on!

Post by Don Roberto
BTW :-) your overindulgence of acronyms makes you come across as an
immature nerd.

You should *really* get over this obsession of yours! There's no
'overindulgence', except when *you* act like a complete idiot. Yes, that
happens quite often, so the only solution is you getting your act
together. (And yes, the above 'acronyms' (Perhaps you shouldn't use a
term which you don't fully understand!?) are intentional.)

[Don Roberto]

Post by Ozlover

Post by Don Roberto

Post by Ozlover

Post by Don Roberto

Post by mainframetech

Post by randyf
Not just Someone, but lots of folks in this group use artificial
sweeterners.. Unlike you (that don't have high glucose issues), many
folks here look to avoid fast absorbed sources of
glucose/fructose/calories

As usual you tend to blat out your comments before asking the
person about their situation. You assume too much. In fact my
physician is concerned about my levels of triglycerides, and is
always at me about keeping them further down by eliminating sweets
and other dietary efforts. Part of the reason he's always looking
for me to get diabetes, as I've explained before.
I haven't forgotten the interests of people in this group.
However, we all have an interest in good health. And some of us
have an interest in not being taken around the bend by studies
alone without other methods of information gathering that help to
make them more believable. Since so many drug makers get fined
for manipulating information, including studies.
You would do much better to not try to represent everyone in
this group, since you don't. Acting like you do has gotten you in
trouble before. Why not calm yourself down and act like others?
Chris

+1
Are you paying attention, Frank?
Righteous ranting Randy could never get as civil as this after someone
got onto his case.

Yes, I'm paying attention, and what I still mainly see is someone
still playing the 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' game.

Your posts clearly show that you do.

Post by Don Roberto
Paranoid Chris has never been my friend and if you wouldn't miss out on
I've been down on paranoid Chris conspiracy crap almost as much as the
unqualified rants of righteous ranting Randy trying to establish himself
as the supreme authority all all matters of science and technology here.

'my enemy's enemy is my friend' is a figure of speech and not an
absolute. It's clear that at times you'll go easy on mainframetech if
(you think) he gives you ammunition to go down on Randy. And yes, at
other times. you go down on mainframetech.

That's one way to look at it and I'm sure mainframetech will be able to
appreciate the conspiracies implied.

A better way to look at it (TM) is:
sometimes I agree with this one,
and sometimes I disagree with that one,
and vice versa.
Other times agreeing with this one
and disagreeing with that one
may be or at least may appear to be at the expense of another.

Post by Ozlover

Post by Don Roberto

Post by Ozlover
And mainframetech isn't 'civil' and neither are you, so PKB.

The post from Chris I was referring to WAS CIVIL.

No it wasn't civil. Yes, it did not use coarse language, but that does
not preclude it from being uncivil. The other Chris (ToC) was a 'master'
in that area, being very uncivil and worse, by only using 'civil'
language.

As I've said: we define things differently.

Post by Ozlover

Post by Don Roberto
As for yours truly - it's always a tit for tat situation, where yours
truly always represents the "tat" part.

Yeah right, dream on!

:-)

Post by Ozlover

Post by Don Roberto
BTW :-) your overindulgence of acronyms makes you come across as an
immature nerd.

You should *really* get over this obsession of yours! There's no
'overindulgence', except when *you* act like a complete idiot. Yes, that
happens quite often, so the only solution is you getting your act
together. (And yes, the above 'acronyms' (Perhaps you shouldn't use a
term which you don't fully understand!?)

That's why we have folks like you and your BFF who fully understand
EVERYTHING and can explain it to all the unwashed.


Don Roberto
----------------------------
Certainly it constitutes bad news when the people who agree with you are
buggier than batshit.
--Philip K. Dick

[r***@val.com]

Post by Don Roberto

Post by Ozlover

Post by Don Roberto
Paranoid Chris has never been my friend and if you wouldn't miss out on

Like when you complemented him on posting some of the most
*interesting material on all of ASD*.
Just so happened this was at the same time mainframe and myself were
feuding.
Praised be the achieves.

Post by Don Roberto

Post by Ozlover

Post by Don Roberto
I've been down on paranoid Chris conspiracy crap almost as much as the
unqualified rants of righteous ranting Randy trying to establish himself
as the supreme authority all all matters of science and technology here.

And you've been down on him in a much worse manner than me or anyone
else. Myself and other have criticize him for content, you attack him
personally, consistent with our M.O.

Post by Don Roberto

Post by Ozlover
'my enemy's enemy is my friend' is a figure of speech and not an
absolute. It's clear that at times you'll go easy on mainframetech if
(you think) he gives you ammunition to go down on Randy. And yes, at
other times. you go down on mainframetech.

That's one way to look at it and I'm sure mainframetech will be able to
appreciate the conspiracies implied.

A better way for YOU to look at it. , but Frank nailed it.
You've played this game with numerous posters here.
And you always make this bogus claim when challenged.

Post by Don Roberto
sometimes I agree with this one,
and sometimes I disagree with that one,
and vice versa.
Other times agreeing with this one
and disagreeing with that one
may be or at least may appear to be at the expense of another.

Post by Ozlover

Post by Don Roberto

Post by Ozlover
And mainframetech isn't 'civil' and neither are you, so PKB.

The post from Chris I was referring to WAS CIVIL.

No it wasn't civil. Yes, it did not use coarse language, but that does
not preclude it from being uncivil. The other Chris (ToC) was a 'master'
in that area, being very uncivil and worse, by only using 'civil'
language.

As I've said: we define things differently.

No news there.

Post by Don Roberto

Post by Ozlover

Post by Don Roberto
As for yours truly - it's always a tit for tat situation, where yours
truly always represents the "tat" part.

Yeah right, dream on!

:-)
That's why we have folks like you and your BFF who fully understand
EVERYTHING and can explain it to all the unwashed.

Yak, yak, yak.
Randy

Post by Don Roberto
Don Roberto
----------------------------
Certainly it constitutes bad news when the people who agree with you are
buggier than batshit.
--Philip K. Dick

[Don Roberto]

Post by r***@val.com

Post by Don Roberto
Paranoid Chris has never been my friend and if you wouldn't miss out on

Like when you complemented him on posting some of the most
*interesting material on all of ASD*.

So?
Unlike you I don't subscribe the pathetic notion that once someone has
been critical about something you have said, s/he can never ever again
say anything of value.
In other words: in my world, REAL people can do both - post "some of the
most *interesting material on all of ASD*" *and* post some of the most
unimpressive material, and still be okay.
Are you at least trying to have at least a peek at the Great Reality
outside your little box?

Post by r***@val.com
Just so happened this was at the same time mainframe and myself were
feuding.
Praised be the achieves.

As I've said before, you are very good at connecting dots where there
aren't any to connect, just as you are very bad at spelling.

[snip]

[Gys de Jongh]

Post by Don Roberto
As I've said before, you are very good at connecting dots where there
aren't any to connect

.....................
more dots
.............................
this is a support group
.......................................

[Don Roberto]

Post by Gys de Jongh

Post by Don Roberto
As I've said before, you are very good at connecting dots where there
aren't any to connect

.....................
more dots
.............................
this is a support group
.......................................

You're getting there...
Just don't forget that
Everything is relative - to a point.

[r***@val.com]

On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 01:36:47 -0700, Don Roberto

Post by Don Roberto

Post by r***@val.com

Post by Don Roberto
Paranoid Chris has never been my friend and if you wouldn't miss out on

Like when you complemented him on posting some of the most
*interesting material on all of ASD*.

So?
Unlike you I don't subscribe the pathetic notion that once someone has
been critical about something you have said, s/he can never ever again
say anything of value.

Then tell me what mainframe said that deserved your comment that he is
*one of the few* that presents valuable info on ASD.
And why, for other things he has posted, is receives nothing but your
derision.

And why did you hound, in the most obnoxious manner, the Real
Outsider up until the spring of 2012 and then change aburptly there
after. I saw no changed in Outsider. Outsider alluded that your guys
met on another discussion group. Is that true?

Randy

[Don Roberto]

Post by r***@val.com
On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 01:36:47 -0700, Don Roberto

Post by Don Roberto

Post by r***@val.com

Post by Don Roberto
Paranoid Chris has never been my friend and if you wouldn't miss out on

Like when you complemented him on posting some of the most
*interesting material on all of ASD*.

So?
Unlike you I don't subscribe the pathetic notion that once someone has
been critical about something you have said, s/he can never ever again
say anything of value.

Then tell me what mainframe said that deserved your comment that he is
*one of the few* that presents valuable info on ASD.
And why, for other things he has posted, is receives nothing but your
derision.

So you *REALLY* can't imagine that someone posting hundreds of times -
with most, or even practically all of the posts implying *VERY* strongly
that the person's a conspiracy nut - that someone like that can post
something of value on occasion?
You really are hopelessly stuck in either-or mode, aren't you?

Post by r***@val.com
And why did you hound, in the most obnoxious manner, the Real
Outsider up until the spring of 2012 and then change aburptly there
after.

First of all NO ONE has been hounding The Real Outsider "in the most
obnoxious manner" *except* the Fake Outsider.

Secondly, don't you think it's up to the Real Outsider to piss and moan
about how yours truly used to "hound" him?
Why should it be up to someone like you, someone who subscribes to the
pathetic notion that once someone has been critical about something
*you* have said, s/he can never ever again say anything of value"?

That either-or mode really can be a big handicap in a multi-dimensional
universe.


I saw no changed in Outsider.

And *what* *you* did NOT "see" constitutes the standard, of course.
Now try to imagine that what you see, or as in this case, didn't see, is
in the eyes of the beholder.

Outsider alluded that your guys

Post by r***@val.com
met on another discussion group. Is that true?

Not that I know of - but you can always post a link pointing to
"Outsider alluding that"

Don Roberto
------------------------------
Kann ein Troll schwimmen?
Im Prinzip ja, er ist ja hohl.
Trotzdem wird er untergehen,
weil er nicht ganz dicht ist.

[Ozlover]

Post by mainframetech
hmm. Someone doesn't want to be reminded about the negatives of the false sweeteners methinks. Maybe a user?

Hmmm. Someone doesn't want to be confronted by facts, so he acts as if
they weren't presented and throws in a - mind you LC - red herring
instead.

[Don Roberto]

Post by Ozlover
[...]

Post by mainframetech
I'm glad to see that some consciousness raising is going on with the
phony sweeteners. Seems like a simple study could be formed to
question folks as to whether they had diabetes and what sweeteners
they used for long periods of time. I wonder if a correlation might
come up.

s/correlation/conspiracy theory/
BURB! Sorry, but those *FOURTY* cans of soda per *DAY* are getting to
me.

Darn! Methinks you just broke Budd Cochran's record...

Post by Ozlover

Post by mainframetech
Given that all false sweeteners have had various negatives promoted
about them at one time or another.

s/negatives promoted/nutcases talking/

Post by mainframetech
Chris

QED.

[W. Baker]

mainframetech <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

: I'm glad to see that some consciousness raising is going on with the
phony sweeteners. Seems like a simple study could be formed to question
folks as to whether they had diabetes and what sweeteners they used for
long periods of time. I wonder if a correlation might come up. : Given
that all false sweeteners have had various negatives promoted about them
at one time or another.

: Chris

Setting up a survey wold involve having to get many factors similar.
weight adn BMI, length of time on these sweeteners. quantity used, etc
all could well affect outcomes.

One would expect that mor overweight and obese peope would be regularly
using the artificial sweeteners in some attemt to control weight, while
thin folks might well not want to use them for asorted reasons, taste,
texture of baked goods, fear of the"unnatural," not fond of sweets, etc.
All these kinds of things would have to be controlled for in order to get
a valid result.

Wendy

[r***@val.com]

On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 18:44:41 +0000 (UTC), "W. Baker"

Post by W. Baker
: I'm glad to see that some consciousness raising is going on with the
phony sweeteners. Seems like a simple study could be formed to question
folks as to whether they had diabetes and what sweeteners they used for
long periods of time. I wonder if a correlation might come up. : Given
that all false sweeteners have had various negatives promoted about them
at one time or another.
: Chris
Setting up a survey wold involve having to get many factors similar.
weight adn BMI, length of time on these sweeteners. quantity used, etc
all could well affect outcomes.
One would expect that mor overweight and obese peope would be regularly
using the artificial sweeteners in some attemt to control weight, while
thin folks might well not want to use them for asorted reasons, taste,
texture of baked goods, fear of the"unnatural," not fond of sweets, etc.
All these kinds of things would have to be controlled for in order to get
a valid result.
Wendy

Yep and that's what the folks with the InterAct Consortium did.
Using 350,000 folks they found no association with the use of fake
sweeteners and diabetes.
http://www.inter-act.eu/project/general-summary-aim.html

Randy

[mainframetech]

uh-huh. Then why do the study that began this thread? If it was already decided. Or were there some disbelievers?

Chris

[randyf]

On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 15:14:07 -0700 (PDT), mainframetech

Post by mainframetech
uh-huh. Then why do the study that began this thread? If it was already decided. Or were there some disbelievers?

Becasue:
1. The first study reported used Massive amounts, not real world
amounts as the InterAct.

2. Nothing is *all ready decided*

3. Ofcourse there are *disbelievers* - look at flat earthers, look at
you.

[Don Roberto]

Post by randyf
On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 15:14:07 -0700 (PDT), mainframetech

Post by mainframetech
uh-huh. Then why do the study that began this thread? If it was already decided. Or were there some disbelievers?

1. The first study reported used Massive amounts, not real world
amounts as the InterAct.
2. Nothing is *all ready decided*
3. Ofcourse there are *disbelievers* - look at flat earthers, look at
you.

Look who's talking

[r***@val.com]

On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 19:21:44 -0700, Don Roberto

Post by Don Roberto

Post by randyf
On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 15:14:07 -0700 (PDT), mainframetech

Post by mainframetech
uh-huh. Then why do the study that began this thread? If it was already decided. Or were there some disbelievers?

1. The first study reported used Massive amounts, not real world
amounts as the InterAct.
2. Nothing is *all ready decided*
3. Ofcourse there are *disbelievers* - look at flat earthers, look at
you.

Look who's talking

Look who's trolling!
Randy

[Don Roberto]

Post by r***@val.com
On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 19:21:44 -0700, Don Roberto

Post by Don Roberto

Post by randyf
On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 15:14:07 -0700 (PDT), mainframetech

Post by mainframetech
uh-huh. Then why do the study that began this thread? If it was already decided. Or were there some disbelievers?

1. The first study reported used Massive amounts, not real world
amounts as the InterAct.
2. Nothing is *all ready decided*
3. Ofcourse there are *disbelievers* - look at flat earthers, look at
you.

Look who's talking

Look who's trolling!

*That* too.
But I can't list *all* your unpalatable features *all* the time.
No one can.


Don Roberto
-------------------------------
Kann ein Troll schwimmen?
Im Prinzip ja, er ist ja hohl.
Trotzdem wird er untergehen,
weil er nicht ganz dicht ist.

[Don Roberto]

Post by mainframetech
uh-huh. Then why do the study that began this thread? If it was already decided. Or were there some disbelievers?

Studies upon studies...when will there ever be a definitive one - ONE WE
ALL CAN BELIEVE IN...

Don Roberto
-----------------------------------+
Everything is relative - to a point.

[Don Roberto]

Post by r***@val.com
On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 18:44:41 +0000 (UTC), "W. Baker"

Post by W. Baker
: I'm glad to see that some consciousness raising is going on with the
phony sweeteners. Seems like a simple study could be formed to question
folks as to whether they had diabetes and what sweeteners they used for
long periods of time. I wonder if a correlation might come up. : Given
that all false sweeteners have had various negatives promoted about them
at one time or another.
: Chris
Setting up a survey wold involve having to get many factors similar.
weight adn BMI, length of time on these sweeteners. quantity used, etc
all could well affect outcomes.
One would expect that mor overweight and obese peope would be regularly
using the artificial sweeteners in some attemt to control weight, while
thin folks might well not want to use them for asorted reasons, taste,
texture of baked goods, fear of the"unnatural," not fond of sweets, etc.
All these kinds of things would have to be controlled for in order to get
a valid result.
Wendy

Yep and that's what the folks with the InterAct Consortium did.
Using 350,000 folks they found no association with the use of fake
sweeteners and diabetes.
http://www.inter-act.eu/project/general-summary-aim.html

Studies upon studies...when will there ever be a definitive on?

Don Roberto
-----------------------------------+
Everything is relative - to a point.

[Freckles]

Artificial sweeteners' sour note
BY DEBORAH NETBURN
9/18/2014
Diet sodas and those packets of artificial sweetener you put in your
coffee may not be as benign as we thought, a new study suggests.
High doses of artificial sweeteners such as saccharin, sucralose and
aspartame can change the population of healthy gut bacteria in mice, and
in some humans. That makes it harder for their bodies to metabolize
sugar, according to a study published Wednesday in the journal Nature.
"These results should prompt additional study and debate on the massive
use of artificial sweeteners," said Eran Segal, a computational
biologist at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel and a senior
author of the paper.
Artificial sweeteners are not digested by the human body, which is why
they have no calories. However, they still must pass through our
gastrointestinal tract, where they encounter the vast ecosystem of
bacteria that thrive in our guts. These bacteria play an important role
in our physiology, including how we process glucose and other sugars.
To find out whether artificial sweeteners affect healthy gut bacteria,
the researchers embarked on a series of experiments.
First they added saccharine, sucralose or aspartame to the drinking
water of different groups of mice. Other groups of mice got real sugar
in their water, and a control group got plain water.
After 11 weeks, the mice that got artificial sweeteners showed higher
levels of glucose intolerance compared with the others -- a sign that
their bodies were doing a worse job of processing sugar. This causes
blood sugar to be too high, often a precursor to Type 2 diabetes.
To see whether the gut microbiome had anything to do with the link
between drinking artificial sweeteners and developing glucose
intolerance, the researchers gave the mice antibiotics to wipe out their
gut bacteria. After that, all the groups were able to metabolize sugar
equally well.
Next, the researchers transplanted gut bacteria from mice that had
consumed saccharin into mice that had no gut bacteria of their own. Six
days later, those mice had lost some of their ability to process sugar.
Genetic analysis revealed that the composition of the gut bacteria in
mice had indeed changed after exposure to the artificial sweetener --
some types of bacteria became more abundant, while others shrank.
The most obvious question is whether artificial sweeteners would have
the same effect in humans. The researchers made some preliminary
attempts to answer this question.
First, they looked at a group of 381 people who are involved in an
ongoing clinical nutritional study and found that the gut bacteria of
those who regularly consumed artificial sweeteners looked different from
those who did not. They also found correlations between people who use
artificial sweetener and those who weighed more and had higher fasting
blood sugar, a condition that can cause heart problems, kidney disease,
eye issues and other health problems.
But they couldn't say that either artificial sweeteners or gut bacteria
were causing weight gain or high blood sugar levels. (It should be noted
that the InterAct study of 350,000 people in Europe found no
relationship between artificial sweetener consumption and any health
problems.)
Finally, the researchers gave seven people high doses of artificial
sweeteners
-- the equivalent of 40 cans of diet soda a day. By the end of the week,
four of them lost some of their ability to metabolize sugar. The other
three saw no change.
Although the human aspect of this study is interesting, it is far from
conclusive, other researchers said.
Sridevi Devaraj, an associate director of Texas Children's Microbiome
Center in Houston, said she would like to know whether the pre-diabetes
symptoms that the mice developed after consuming artificial sweeteners
would lead to full-blown diabetes over time.
"The jury is still out with regards to whether these sweeteners actually
cause weight gain," said Devaraj, who was not involved in the new
research. "It begs for a really good study in humans."
The original researchers agree. "We are not at the point to make a
change, but we are at a point to promote discussion in the medical,
scientific and general community," said Weizmann's Dr. Eran Elinav, the
co-senior author of the study.

I'm glad to see that some consciousness raising is going on with the phony
sweeteners. Seems like a simple study could be formed to question folks as
to whether they had diabetes and what sweeteners they used for long periods
of time. I wonder if a correlation might come up.

Given that all false sweeteners have had various negatives promoted about
them at one time or another.

Chris
----------------------------------------------------------
I can't use Aspartame because it causes severe blind spots in my vision that
last for hours. Started using Splenda about seven years ago and thought it
was not causing problems.

Three years ago I noticed when I spent more than a few minutes outside
without sunglasses, my vision became very foggy. I have my eyes checked
twice a year and the doctor can not find anything wrong.

I used all my Splenda and have not gotten to the market for several days to
buy more. I have not used Splenda for three days now, and suddenly, my foggy
vision has completely cleared up.

Splenda may not have been causing my vision problem, but it certainly is a
prime suspect.

Freckles

[Freckles]

Artificial sweeteners' sour note
BY DEBORAH NETBURN
9/18/2014
Diet sodas and those packets of artificial sweetener you put in your
coffee may not be as benign as we thought, a new study suggests.
High doses of artificial sweeteners such as saccharin, sucralose and
aspartame can change the population of healthy gut bacteria in mice, and
in some humans. That makes it harder for their bodies to metabolize
sugar, according to a study published Wednesday in the journal Nature.
"These results should prompt additional study and debate on the massive
use of artificial sweeteners," said Eran Segal, a computational
biologist at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel and a senior
author of the paper.
Artificial sweeteners are not digested by the human body, which is why
they have no calories. However, they still must pass through our
gastrointestinal tract, where they encounter the vast ecosystem of
bacteria that thrive in our guts. These bacteria play an important role
in our physiology, including how we process glucose and other sugars.
To find out whether artificial sweeteners affect healthy gut bacteria,
the researchers embarked on a series of experiments.
First they added saccharine, sucralose or aspartame to the drinking
water of different groups of mice. Other groups of mice got real sugar
in their water, and a control group got plain water.
After 11 weeks, the mice that got artificial sweeteners showed higher
levels of glucose intolerance compared with the others -- a sign that
their bodies were doing a worse job of processing sugar. This causes
blood sugar to be too high, often a precursor to Type 2 diabetes.
To see whether the gut microbiome had anything to do with the link
between drinking artificial sweeteners and developing glucose
intolerance, the researchers gave the mice antibiotics to wipe out their
gut bacteria. After that, all the groups were able to metabolize sugar
equally well.
Next, the researchers transplanted gut bacteria from mice that had
consumed saccharin into mice that had no gut bacteria of their own. Six
days later, those mice had lost some of their ability to process sugar.
Genetic analysis revealed that the composition of the gut bacteria in
mice had indeed changed after exposure to the artificial sweetener --
some types of bacteria became more abundant, while others shrank.
The most obvious question is whether artificial sweeteners would have
the same effect in humans. The researchers made some preliminary
attempts to answer this question.
First, they looked at a group of 381 people who are involved in an
ongoing clinical nutritional study and found that the gut bacteria of
those who regularly consumed artificial sweeteners looked different from
those who did not. They also found correlations between people who use
artificial sweetener and those who weighed more and had higher fasting
blood sugar, a condition that can cause heart problems, kidney disease,
eye issues and other health problems.
But they couldn't say that either artificial sweeteners or gut bacteria
were causing weight gain or high blood sugar levels. (It should be noted
that the InterAct study of 350,000 people in Europe found no
relationship between artificial sweetener consumption and any health
problems.)
Finally, the researchers gave seven people high doses of artificial
sweeteners
-- the equivalent of 40 cans of diet soda a day. By the end of the week,
four of them lost some of their ability to metabolize sugar. The other
three saw no change.
Although the human aspect of this study is interesting, it is far from
conclusive, other researchers said.
Sridevi Devaraj, an associate director of Texas Children's Microbiome
Center in Houston, said she would like to know whether the pre-diabetes
symptoms that the mice developed after consuming artificial sweeteners
would lead to full-blown diabetes over time.
"The jury is still out with regards to whether these sweeteners actually
cause weight gain," said Devaraj, who was not involved in the new
research. "It begs for a really good study in humans."
The original researchers agree. "We are not at the point to make a
change, but we are at a point to promote discussion in the medical,
scientific and general community," said Weizmann's Dr. Eran Elinav, the
co-senior author of the study.

I'm glad to see that some consciousness raising is going on with the phony
sweeteners. Seems like a simple study could be formed to question folks as
to whether they had diabetes and what sweeteners they used for long periods
of time. I wonder if a correlation might come up.

Given that all false sweeteners have had various negatives promoted about
them at one time or another.

Chris
----------------------------------------------------------
I can't use Aspartame because it causes severe blind spots in my vision that
last for hours. Started using Splenda about seven years ago and thought it
was not causing problems.

Three years ago I noticed when I spent more than a few minutes outside
without sunglasses, my vision became very foggy. I have my eyes checked
twice a year and the doctor can not find anything wrong.

I used all my Splenda and have not gotten to the market for several days to
buy more. I have not used Splenda for three days now, and suddenly, my foggy
vision has completely cleared up.

Splenda may not have been causing my vision problem, but it certainly is a
prime suspect.

Freckles

[c***@gmail.com]

I'm surprised my trigs were 55 in Aug on 500 mg of niacin, they were 59 6 months earlier with no niacin. The niacin did lower my LDL 26 pts tho and raised my HDL 10 pts.

[c***@gmail.com]

Big pharma wants diabetics to quit using fake sweeteners so they'll use real sugar and get out of control and need more big pharma products.