Sweeteners Can Mess You Up!

Sugar, in large doses, is a harmful substance. Many people have warned against sugar going back to the 1800s. The strongest case was made against it by the physiologist, nutritionist, and professor John Yudkin back in 1972 with his book Pure, White and Deadly. For speaking the truth, his reputation was destroyed by Ancel Keys. But more recently, the science journalist Gary Taubes brought the topic back to public attention, in his own book The Case Against Sugar.

Yudkin has been vindicated, as Keys original research that blamed saturated fat for heart disease has since been re-analyzed and shown that sugar is the stronger correlation. We also now understand the science of why that is the true. But it isn’t only about sugar. The sweet taste, whether from sugar or non-nutritive sweeteners, still causes many of the same problems. All sweeteners affect insulin, gut microbiome, cell functioning, neurocognition, mood, and much else. For example, consumption of both sugar and aspartame is associated with depression, at least in one study that was a randomized controlled trial (G. N. Lindseth, Neurobehavioral Effects of Aspartame Consumption).

They do alter serotonin levels, if not dopamine in all cases — some sweeteners affect dopamine and some don’t. This is observable in how people addicted to sugar so easily shift to non-sugar sweeteners and then act in the same addicted way, finding it hard to imagine giving them up. One way or another, addictive pathways seem to be elicited. The brain isn’t fooled and so the body still will hunger for the sugar it thinks it is getting from the sweet taste.

Exchanging one addictive substance, sugar, for another, non-sugar sweetener, is not a benefit. The problem is the addiction itself. A diet high in carbs and sugars is addictive. Throwing in some other kinds of sweeteners doesn’t change this. The best option is to break the addictive cycle entirely by going low-carb or, better yet, ketogenic. And there is no evidence that artificial sweeteners can be used with a ketogenic diet, since they might knock the body out of ketosis in the way sugar does. To be certain, just eliminate all sweeteners and so kill the problem at its root.

On the other hand, that can be easier said than done. I know sugar addiction, as in I was a sugar fiend from childhood to my thirties. And I did for years increase my use of other sweeteners, in an attempt to break free from the hold sugar had over my brain and mood. This wasn’t a particularly successful strategy. And my health was not improved, as the non-sugar sweeteners maintained my high-carb cravings.

I simply had to cut them out strictly. This simple truth is reinforced every time I slowly increase sweeteners in my diet and the cravings creep back in. I just don’t feel good with them. The lesson has been fully learned at this point.

It was amazing what a difference it made once my sweet tooth went away. Only then did my physical health improve and my psychological health soon followed. I can’t emphasize this enough. Carbs, sugars, and other sweeteners will seriously mess you up over time. You might not notice it for decades, but it all catches up with you. The damage is being done, even if you don’t notice it slowly accumulating. And realize the consequences won’t be limited to sickliness of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease, as neurocognitive and mental health can also decline (e.g., Alzheimer’s is now called type 3 diabetes by some).

An occasional sweet at a birthday party or holiday gathering is one thing. Maybe you can have that and immediately go back on a healthy low-carb diet. Maybe or maybe not. If you were ever a sugar addict, as most Americans are, you are tempting fate. It’s like a recovering alcoholic taking that first sip of whiskey, vodka, or beer; like the recovering druggie getting that first shot of heroin or puff of the crack pipe.

Sugar is a drug, as research shows, that elicits the same reward pathway in the brain as other drugs and all sweeteners can elicit the same or similar pathways. You’ll hunger for more. And even if other sweeteners don’t have all of the problems of sugar, they still have plenty of potential problems that could do serious harm to your health over time.

* * *

Sucralose Promotes Food Intake through NPY and a Neuronal Fasting Response
by Qiao-Ping Wang et al

The truth about artificial sweeteners – Are they good for diabetics?
by Vikas Purohit and Sundeep Mishra

Consuming low-calorie sweeteners may predispose overweight individuals to diabetes
by Jenni Glenn Gingery and Colleen Williams

Not So Sweet: Metabolic Problems Caused by Artificial Sweeteners
by Serena Cho

Artificial Sweeteners Impact Metabolic Health Even on Cellular Level
by Kristen Monaco

Artificial Sweeteners Could be Sabotaging Your Microbiome, Says Study
by Amel Ahmed

Sugar Substitutes or Sugar: What’s Better for Diabetes?
by Kathleen Doheny

Artificial sweeteners linked to diabetes and obesity
by James Brown and Alex Conner

Artificial Sweeteners: Agents of Insulin Resistance, Obesity and Disease
by Loren Cordain

The Unbiased Truth About Artificial Sweeteners
by Chris Kresser

How Artificial Sweeteners Wreak Havoc on Your Gut
by Chris Kresser

Artificial Sweeteners Can Lead to Diabetes In Overweight People
by Gundry MD Team

Artificial Sweeteners Could Be Ruining Your Gut Health
by Gundry MD Team

Are Artificial Sweeteners Safe for the Brain and Gut
by Siim Land

Artificial Sweeteners Don’t Fool Your Brain
by Joseph Mercola

Tricking Taste Buds but Not the Brain: Artificial Sweeteners Change Brain’s Pleasure Response to Sweet
by Caitlin Kirkwood

Artificial Sweeteners: Why You Should Completely Avoid Them to Stay Healthy
by Elizabeth Lyden

Aspartame: 11 Dangers of This All-Too-Common Food Additive
by Rebekah Edwards

Aspartame Side Effects: Recent Research Confirms Reasons for Concern
by University Health News Staff

The Effects of Aspartame on Fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
by Adrienne Dellwo

Are Artificial Sweeteners Damaging Your Blood Vessels?
by Michelle Schoffro Cook

Direct and indirect cellular effects of aspartame on the brain
by P. Humphries, E. Pretorius, and H. Naudé

Effects of repeated doses of aspartame on serotonin and its metabolite in various regions of the mouse brain.
by R. P. Sharma and R. A. Coulombe Jr.

Neurophysiological symptoms and aspartame: What is the connection?
by Arbind Kumar Choudhary and Yeong Yeh Lee

The debate over neurotransmitter interaction in aspartame usage
by Arbind Kumar Choudhary and Yeong Yeh Lee

The Connection between Aspartame (Artificial Sweetener) and Panic Attacks, Depression, Bipolar Disorder, Memory Problems, and Other Mental Symptoms
by Betty Martini

Side-Effects of Aspartame on the Brain
by Michael Greger

Migraine Triggers: Artificial Sweeteners
by Jeremy Orozco

Intense Sweetness Surpasses Cocaine Reward
by Magalie Lenoir , Fuschia Serre , Lauriane Cantin, and Serge H. Ahmed

Diet Soft Drinks Linked to Depression
by Naveed Saleh

Why is Diet Soda Addictive?
by Edward Group

Neurobiology of Addiction
by George F. Koob, Michel Le Moal
pp. 448

Accumulating evidence also suggests that dopamine is not required for nondrug reward. In a study in which dopamine release in the nucleus accumbens core and shell was measured with precise voltammetric techniques during self-stimulation, it was shown that if dopamine activation is a necessary condition for brain stimulation reward, evoked dopamine release is actually not observed during brain stimulation reward and is even diminished (Garris et al, 1999). Also, mice completely lacking tyrosine hydroxylase, such that they cannot make dopamine, demonstrated the ability to learn to consume sweet solutions and showed a preference for sucrose and saccharin. Dopamine was not required for animals to find sweet tastes of sucrose or saccharin rewarding (Cannon and Palmiter, 2003; Cannon and Bseikri, 2004).

* * *

I wrote this post as a response to a video, Keto & Beverages, by the LCHF advocate Dr. Westman.

Below is an amusing and irritating (and, sadly, all too common) dialogue or miscommunication I had with Dr. Eric Westman or someone writing on his behalf at his Youtube channel, Adapt Your Life. The most frustrating part is that I’m mostly in agreement with Dr. Westman, as I too adhere to LCHF. For that reason, I don’t want to be harshly critical nor do I want to be polarized into a stronger position than I actually support, but I must admit that my emotional response was a bit negative.

To stand back from the disagreement, I don’t even have a strong opinion on what others do in terms of sweeteners. I don’t recommend sweeteners, sugar or otherwise, based on personal experience. But if artificial sweeteners help some people to transition to a healthier diet (or if they believe this to be true, and I won’t dismiss the placebo effect), then more power to them. Anyway, here is the interaction that rubbed me the wrong way:

Me: “Wasn’t there a recent study that showed even artificial sweeteners can lead to diabetes? The body still responds to the sweet taste as if it were sugar and over time messes with insulin sensitivity.”

Other person: “Hi Ben Steele, I’m not sure we have seen this study.”

Me: “I decided to write a post about it. I found the info I was looking for. At the end of the post, I share links to it and other info about the problems with non-sugar sweeteners.

“As a recovering sugar addict who followed that up with addiction to other sweeteners, I personally would recommend against such substances. But each individual has to decide for themselves.”

[I then linked to this post.]

Other person: “Hi Ben Steele, we opened a couple and didn’t find an actual “study”. Just peoples opinion and thoughts. We would be interested to read a study, preferably a RCT as this is the gold standard of studies. Thanks for this 😊”

Me: “Multiple links were to “studies”. The first two links are papers on studies, the third is the press release of a study, the fourth is a Yale report about a Yale study, five more links further down are papers on studies, and the last is a quote from an academic book from a university press. So, about a third of them linked to studies and academic material. As for all the rest, they directly reference and discuss numerous other studies.

“If you are interested to read a study, then do so. But if not, then don’t. I can’t force you to read anything.”

To further respond, I’m not sure how much of the research is randomized controlled trial. But after doing a casual research that as easily could’ve done by Dr. Westman or his staff, I found info on RCT research. I noticed it briefly mentioned in a few links above, but I didn’t check all the links. I did find RCTs on the topic elsewhere in doing a web search.

I still find it irritating, though. It feels hypocritical. Dr. Westman or his representative was acting with condescension, intentional or not.

Why is this person demanding RCTs of me when they don’t hold themselves to this same standard? Dr. Westman offered no RCTs to back up his recommendations. And these artificial sweeteners were approved by the FDA without any RCTs proving their safety. So, why is it that critics have to prove they are unsafe? Why would we allow invented chemicals to be put on the market and then have doctors recommend them to patients without knowing their long-term safety or side effects?

Just to prove my point, I will share some RCT evidence (see below). And to be fair, I will admit that the results are mixed and, one might argue, inconclusive — consider aspartame that has been researched more fully (see: Travis Saunders, Aspartame: Cause of or Solution to Obesity?; and Michael Joseph, Is Aspartame Safe Or Is It Bad For You?). But based on a familiarity with the available research, without more and better research, no sane and reasonable person would give artificial sweeteners a clean bill of health and proclaim them safe for general mass consumption, especially on a regular basis as a preferred flavoring. Whether or not artificial sweeteners cause weight gain, those might be the least of our worries, in terms of potential side effects seen in some of the studies. Some precautionary principle is in order.

Still, yes, it is hard to state a strong opinion about present evidence, beyond a note of caution. But every individual is free to dismiss such caution and use artificial sweeteners anyway. They might or might not be helpful in losing weight, even if used long enough might lead to detrimental outcomes in other areas of health. Maybe that risk seems worthwhile, assuming short-term weight loss is all that concerns you, and assuming that short-term use won’t lead to long-term use and won’t sabotage a long-term healthy diet. Individuals should make a decision with eyes wide open with the knowledge of potential risks that could be quite serious.

I understand. There are also potential benefits. For those addicted to sugar, they are dealing with a highly destructive substance. Artificial sweeteners may seem like the only choice. And who am I to judge. That is what I did. While transitioning off sugar, I spent a number of years consuming my fair share of laboratory-invented sweeteners. It did get me off sugar, but then all that happened was I was addicted to these other sweeteners. It maintained my sweet tooth and so encouraged me to continue eating a diet high in carbs and sugar. There was no obvious benefit. It did eventually lead me to give up all sweeteners. I just don’t know that the artificial sweeteners were more of a help or a hindrance in that process.

Whatever your decision, know that these substances aren’t without risks. It is dietary Russian roulette. Maybe there will be no serious harm and maybe there will. We shall all find out decades from now when the children and young adults raised on these chemicals reach older age. Here is my perspective. Why take any risk at all when it is completely unnecessary? We already know how to stop sugar cravings in their tracks. With a ketogenic diet, you won’t need to exchange addiction to sugar with an addiction to artificial sweeteners. It’s the simplest solution and, for such people, the only solution with a guaranteed net positive health outcome.

As a quick note, I’d point out a few things about the research. First, all sweeteners affect the body and so aren’t neutral substances, but it is unknown if the effects are a net benefit or net loss. Also, different sweeteners have different effects and the reason for this is not entirely understood. There are still other concerns.

The worst effects in animal studies were seen with high doses, which makes one wonder what is the effect of artificial sweeteners combined with the effect numerous other chemicals, additives, toxins, and pollutants, along with other physiological and environmental stressors that most people are exposed to, as the interaction of multiple factors is an area that mostly remains unexplored and, more importantly, rarely controlled for. And as far as I know, no study has ever been done with various sweeteners in relation to low-carb, zero-carb, and ketogenic diets; whereas most of the studies that have been done are using subjects on the severely unhealthy standard American diet, and so maybe for those people an artificial sweetener is better than the alternative of a high-sugar diet.

Basically, we are in a state of far greater ignorance than knowledge. It’s anyone’s guess. As always, you are taking your life into your own hands. Whatever a journalist, doctor, or health expert may say, it is in the end your life that is at stake, not theirs.

* * *

Gain weight by “going diet?” Artificial sweeteners and the neurobiology of sugar cravings
by Qing Yang

[C]onsensus from interventional studies suggests that artificial sweeteners do not help reduce weight when used alone [2,25]. BMI did not decrease after 25 weeks of substituting diet beverages for sugar-sweetened beverages in 103 adolescents in a randomized controlled trial, except among the heaviest participants [26]. Adouble blind study subjected 55 overweight youth to 13 weeks of a 1,000 Kcal diet accompanied by daily capsules of aspartame or lactose placebo. Both groups lost weight, and the difference was not significant. Weight loss was attributed to caloric restriction [27]. Similar results were reported for a 12-week, 1,500 Kcal program using either regular or diet soda [28]. Interestingly, when sugar was covertly switched to aspartame in a metabolic ward, a 25 percent immediate reduction in energy intake was achieved [29]. Conversely, knowingly ingesting aspartame was associated with increased overall energy intake, suggesting overcompensation for the expected caloric reduction [30]. Vigilant
monitoring, caloric restriction, and exercise were likely involved in the weight loss seen in multidisciplinary programs that included artificial sweeteners [31,32].

Nonnutritive sweeteners and cardiometabolic health: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies
by Meghan B. Azad, Ahmed M. Abou-Setta, Bhupendrasinh F. Chauhan, Rasheda Rabbani, Justin Lys, Leslie Copstein, Amrinder Mann, Maya M. Jeyaraman, Ashleigh E. Reid, Michelle Fiander, Dylan S. MacKay, Jon McGavock, Brandy Wicklow, and Ryan Zarychanski

Evidence from small RCTs with short follow-up (median 6 mo) suggests that consumption of nonnutritive sweeteners is not consistently associated with decreases in body weight, BMI or waist circumference. However, in larger prospective cohort studies with longer follow-up periods (median 10 yr), intake of nonnutritive sweeteners is significantly associated with modest long-term increases in each of these measures. Cohort studies further suggest that consumption of nonnutritive sweeteners is associated with higher risks of obesity, hypertension, metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes, stroke and cardiovascular disease events; however, publication bias was indicated for type 2 diabetes, and there are no data available from RCTs to confirm these observations.

Previous reviews12,65 concluded that, although data from RCTs support weight-loss effects from sustained nonnutritive sweetener interventions, observational studies provide inconsistent results. Building on these findings, we included new studies14–24 and found that consumption of nonnutritive sweeteners was not generally associated with weight loss among participants in RCTs, except in long-term (≥ 12 mo) trials with industry sponsorship. In addition, we found that consumption of nonnutritive sweeteners was associated with modest long-term weight gain in observational studies. Our results also extend previous meta-analyses that showed higher risks of type 2 diabetes32,33 and hypertension66 with regular consumption of nonnutritive sweeteners.

Sucralose decreases insulin sensitivity in healthy subjects: a randomized controlled trial
by Alonso Romo-Romo, Carlos A. Aguilar-Salinas, Griselda X. Brito-Córdova, Rita A. Gómez-Díaz, and Paloma Almeda-Valdes

Design
We performed a randomized controlled trial involving healthy subjects without comorbidities and with a low habitual consumption of nonnutritive sweeteners (n = 33/group). […]

Results
Individuals assigned to sucralose consumption showed a significant decrease in insulin sensitivity with a median (IQR) percentage change of −17.7% (−29.3% to −1.0%) in comparison to −2.8% (−30.7% to 40.6%) in the control group (P= 0.04). An increased acute insulin response to glucose from 577 mU · L-1· min (350–1040 mU · L-1· min) to 671 mU · L-1· min (376–1010 mU · L-1· min) (P = 0.04) was observed in the sucralose group for participants with adequate adherence.

Conclusions
Sucralose may have effects on glucose metabolism, and our study complements findings previously reported in other trials. Further studies are needed to confirm the decrease in insulin sensitivity and to explore the mechanisms for these metabolic alterations.

Neurobehavioral Effects of Aspartame Consumption
by Glenda N. Lindseth, Sonya E. Coolahan, Thomas V. Petros, and Paul D. Lindseth

Despite its widespread use, the artificial sweetener aspartame remains one of the most controversial food additives, due to mixed evidence on its neurobehavioral effects. Healthy adults who consumed a study-prepared high-aspartame diet (25 mg/kg body weight/day) for 8 days and a low-aspartame diet (10 mg/kg body weight/day) for 8 days, with a 2-week washout between the diets, were examined for within-subject differences in cognition, depression, mood, and headache. Measures included weight of foods consumed containing aspartame, mood and depression scales, and cognitive tests for working memory and spatial orientation. When consuming high-aspartame diets, participants had more irritable mood, exhibited more depression, and performed worse on spatial orientation tests. Aspartame consumption did not influence working memory. Given that the higher intake level tested here was well below the maximum acceptable daily intake level of 40–50 mg/kg body weight/day, careful consideration is warranted when consuming food products that may affect neurobehavioral health.

Artificial Sweeteners: A Systematic Review and Primer for Gastroenterologists
by Marisa Spencer, Amit Gupta, Lauren Van Dam, Carol Shannon, Stacy Menees, and William D Chey

Artificial sweeteners (AS) are ubiquitous in food and beverage products, yet little is known about their effects on the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, and whether they play a role in the development of GI symptoms, especially in patients with irritable bowel syndrome. Utilizing the PubMed and Embase databases, we conducted a search for articles on individual AS and each of these terms: fermentation, absorption, and GI tract. Standard protocols for a systematic review were followed. At the end of our search, we found a total of 617 eligible papers, 26 of which were included. Overall, there is limited medical literature available on this topic. The 2 main areas on which there is data to suggest that AS affect the GI tract include motility and the gut microbiome, though human data is lacking, and most of the currently available data is derived from in vivo studies. The effect on motility is mainly indirect via increased incretin secretion, though the clinical relevance of this finding is unknown as the downstream effect on motility was not studied. The specific effects of AS on the microbiome have been conflicting and the available studies have been heterogeneous in terms of the population studied and both the AS and doses evaluated. Further research is needed to assess whether AS could be a potential cause of GI symptoms. This is especially pertinent in patients with irritable bowel syndrome, a population in whom dietary interventions are routinely utilized as a management strategy.

Association between intake of non-sugar sweeteners and health outcomes: systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised and non-randomised controlled trials and observational studies
by Ingrid Toews, Szimonetta Lohner, Daniela Küllenberg de Gaudry, Harriet Sommer, Joerg J Meerpohl

In one randomised controlled trial,85 total cholesterol concentration decreased strongly in sucrose groups but increased in the aspartame group (mean difference 0.44 mmol/L, 95% confidence interval 0.33 to 0.56; n=45). […]

In one crossover non-randomised controlled trial,83 researchers found a significantly higher increase in blood glucose in children of preschool age receiving aspartame compared with sucrose (mean difference 0.24 mmol/L, 95% confidence interval 0.09 to 0.39; n=25), a significantly higher increase in blood glucose in children of school age receiving saccharin compared with sucrose (0.65 mmol/L, 0.44 to 0.86; n=23), and a significantly lower increase in blood glucose in children of preschool age receiving aspartame compared with saccharin (−0.75 mmol/L, −0.95 to −0.64; n=23, very low certainty of evidence). In overweight children involved in active weight loss, blood glucose decreased less strongly in those receiving NSSs compared with those not receiving NSSs (0.3 mmol/L, 0.2 to 0.4; n=49, very low certainty of evidence).

Systematic review of the relationship between artificial sweetener consumption and cancer in humans: analysis of 599,741 participants
by A. Mishra, K. Ahmed, S. Froghi, and P. Dasgupta

The statistical value of this review is limited by the heterogeneity and observational designs of the included studies. Although there is limited evidence to
suggest that heavy consumption may increase the risk of certain cancers, overall
the data presented are inconclusive as to any relationship between artificial sweeteners and cancer.

Evidence suggesting artificial sweeteners may be harmful should give us pause
by Leslie Beck

The study, a randomized controlled trial, investigated the effect of daily sucralose consumption on insulin sensitivity in 66 healthy, normal-weight adults who didn’t regularly use artificial sweeteners. […]

This finding is provocative because it suggests that regular consumption of sucralose can lead to insulin resistance in healthy, normal-weight people.

Sucralose may affect blood sugar control by activating sweet taste receptors in the gut, triggering the release of insulin. Artificial sweeteners are also thought to disrupt the balance of good gut bacteria in a direction that can lead to insulin resistance and weight gain.

Did America Get Fat by Drinking Diet Soda?
by Daniel Engber

Perhaps more to the point, researchers have tested the effects of diet soda on people trying to lose weight, and gotten positive results. A randomized, controlled trial published in May compared the efficacy of artificially sweetened beverages and water in a 12-week weight-loss program. Both treatment groups ended up with smaller waists, and the people taking diet drinks appeared to lose more weight. That study’s lead authors are consultants for Coca-Cola, so perhaps we shouldn’t take this as the final word. But another randomized trial from 2012, this one funded by a bottled-water company, came to a similar conclusion. When overweight and obese adults switched to diet beverages or water for a six-month stretch, both groups shed 1 inch of girth, on average, and 5 pounds.

Health outcomes of non-nutritive sweeteners: analysis of the research landscape
Szimonetta Lohner, Ingrid Toews, and Joerg J. Meerpoh

Finally, we included 372 studies in our scoping review, comprising 15 systematic reviews, 155 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 23 non-randomized controlled trials, 57 cohort studies, 52 case-control studies, 28 cross sectional studies and 42 case series/case reports.

In healthy subjects, appetite and short term food intake, risk of cancer, risk of diabetes, risk of dental caries, weight gain and risk of obesity are the most investigated health outcomes. Overall there is no conclusive evidence for beneficial and harmful effects on those outcomes. Numerous health outcomes including headaches, depression, behavioral and cognitive effects, neurological effects, risk of preterm delivery, cardiovascular effects or risk of chronic kidney disease were investigated in fewer studies and further research is needed. In subjects with diabetes and hypertension, the evidence regarding health outcomes of NNS use is also inconsistent.

Early-Life Exposure to Non-Nutritive Sweeteners and the Developmental Origins of Childhood Obesity: Global Evidence from Human and Rodent Studies
by Alyssa J. Archibald, Vernon W. Dolinsky, and Meghan B. Azad

Non-nutritive sweeteners (NNS) are increasingly consumed by children and pregnant women around the world, yet their long-term health impact is unclear. Here, we review an emerging body of evidence suggesting that early-life exposure to NNS may adversely affect body composition and cardio-metabolic health. Some observational studies suggest that children consuming NNS are at increased risk for obesity-related outcomes; however, others find no association or provide evidence of confounding. Fewer studies have examined prenatal NNS exposure, with mixed results from different analytical approaches. There is a paucity of RCTs evaluating NNS in children, yielding inconsistent results that can be difficult to interpret due to study design limitations (e.g., choice of comparator, multifaceted interventions). The majority of this research has been conducted in high-income countries. Some rodent studies demonstrate adverse metabolic effects from NNS, but most have used extreme doses that are not relevant to humans, and few have distinguished prenatal from postnatal exposure. Most studies focus on synthetic NNS in beverages, with few examining plant-derived NNS or NNS in foods. Overall, there is limited and inconsistent evidence regarding the impact of early-life NNS exposure on the developmental programming of obesity and cardio-metabolic health. Further research and mechanistic studies are needed to elucidate these effects and inform dietary recommendations for expectant mothers and children worldwide.

Noncaloric Sweeteners in Children: A Controversial Theme
by Samuel Durán Agüero, Lissé Angarita Dávila, Ma. Cristina Escobar Contreras, Diana Rojas Gómez, and Jorge de Assis Costa

On the other hand, three transversal studies, including 385 and 3311 children, showed positive association between the intakes of NCS and BMI [53]. Similar results were obtained with pregnant woman who ingested NCS, showing more probability of having babies with increased risk for later obesity or overweight. However, the limitation of the studies is that these were of observational type, and the findings do not necessarily imply a significant correlation between the intake of artificial sweeteners and weight gain [54, 55]. In a meta-analysis of intake of NCS that included 11.774 citations, 7 trials, 1003 participants, and 30 cohort studies (adults and adolescents) it was concluded that there is not enough evidence from randomized controlled trials to demonstrate the positive effect of NCS on controlling body weight. Findings of observational studies suggest that the continuous ingestion of NCS could be associated with BMI and cardiometabolic risk increase [56].

Diet Soda May Alter Our Gut Microbes And Raise The Risk Of Diabetes
by Allison Aubrey

While the findings are preliminary, the paper could begin to explain why studies of diet soda point in opposite directions.

“All of us have a microbiome” made up of trillions of organisms. “[It’s] extremely complex. Everybody’s microbiome is a little different,” Blaser says.

And the ways our microbiomes respond to what we eat can vary, too.

In the study, the Israeli researchers find that as mice and people started consuming artificial sweeteners, some types of bacteria got pushed out, and other types of bacteria began to proliferate.

It could be that for some people who responded negatively to the artificial sweetener, the bacteria that got crowded out were helping to keep glucose in check.

How it’s happening isn’t clear, and Blaser says a lot more research is needed.

“So that’s the next step,” Blaser says. “Firstly, for [researchers] to confirm this, to see if it’s really true.” And the next challenge is to understand the mechanism. “How does the change in the microbial composition — how is it causing this?”

Lots of researchers agree they’d like to see a large-scale study.

“It’s much too early, on the basis of this one study, [to conclude that] artificial sweeteners have negative impacts on humans’ [risk for diabetes],” says James Hill, director of the Center for Human Nutrition at the University of Colorado.

He points to a randomized controlled trial published in 2011 that found artificial sweeteners helped to limit the rise in blood sugar in a group of slightly overweight people, compared with sugar.

Hill also points to a study of people on the National Weight Control Registry that found successful long-term dieters tend to consume artificially sweetened foods and beverages at a higher rate compared with the general population.

So expect the debate over diet sodas to continue — and also anticipate hearing more about the role of our microbiomes.

Study links artificial sweeteners and weight gain
by CTVNews.ca Staff

Azad said what her team was most struck by was the lack of good, rigorous studies on artificial sweeteners.

“Surprisingly, given how common these products are, not many studies have looked at the long-term impact of their consumption,” Azad told CTV News Channel from Lisbon, Portugal.

She noted that only seven of the 37 studies they reviewed were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and all were relatively short, following participants for a median period of only six months.

The other 30 studies were longer and followed the participants for an average of 10 years, but they were observational studies – a form of research that is not as precise as a controlled trial.

“A lot of the studies we found were observational, meaning they could show a link but they can’t prove a cause-and-effect relationship,” she said.

Among the seven RCT’s, regular consumption of sweeteners had no significant effect on weight loss. From the other studies, the team found that regular use of sweeteners was associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes and high blood pressure, and modest increases in weight and waist circumferences.

“What we found was that at the end of the day, from all of this research, there really wasn’t firm evidence of a long-term benefit of artificial sweeteners. And there was some evidence of long-term harm from long-term consumption,” Azad said.

As for why artificial sweeteners seem to be linked to weight gain, not weight loss, Azad says no one knows for sure but there are lots of theories.

One theory is that the sweeteners somehow disrupt healthy gut bacteria. Another theory is that the sweeteners confuse our metabolisms, causing them to overreact to sugary tastes.

It could be that those who regularly use artificial sweeteners over-compensate for the missed calories from sugar, or they could have otherwise unhealthy diets in conjunction with sweetener use.

Azad would like to see a lot more research on the long-term use of sweeteners, in particular studies that could compare the different sweeteners, to see if one is any better than another.

In the meantime, for those trying to cut down on their sugar consumption, Azad says it’s important not to switch from one harmful food item to another.

“I think the takeaway for Canadians at this point is to maybe think twice about whether you really want to be consuming these artificial sweeteners, particularly on an everyday basis,” Azad said, “because really we don’t have evidence to say for sure whether these are truly harmless alternatives to sugar.”

A True Story

We Americans are trapped in a cage with a sleeping grizzly bear and a pack of rabid wolves. The DNC careerists hold the keys to the lock.

They keep telling everyone to speak softly and don’t make any sudden moves, for fear of being torn to shreds. When someone suggests they simply unlock the cage door so that we could all safely step outside, they calmly explain that the danger is real but that we need to consider other options first before we go to such extremes.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump punches the bear in the nose and flings his own poop at the wolves, while declaring there is no bear or wolves and even if there were he’d use his business superpowers to make a deal with them. The GOP sycophants defend his bravery in standing up to the libtards telling everyone what to do. Make the Cage Great Again, cheers some in the crowd.

The corporatist news media hacks, a mass of people between them and the now growling animals, with great self-importance fairly report both sides of the disagreement. Meanwhile, the morning talk show hosts halfheartedly debate whether bears and wolves are fake news. Then they cut to an advertisement for a new antidepressant: “Do you feel anxious? Ask your doctor about Xibuprex. Symptoms may include prostate reflux, toenail dysplasia, herniated itching…”

The American people huddle together in separate groups. With passive expectation, their eyes are glued to their smartphones. They watch videos of what is going on around them and scroll through their social media feeds trying to determine which side they agree with by liking the Facebook posts and retweeting the Tweets that align with their preferred ideology or identity politics.

The bear awakens from its slumber. The rabid wolves approach. The cage door remains locked. The crowd nervously shifts this way and then that.

Neoliberal Catastrophism

“It seems like there are an increasing number of areas where the discourse among centrists and liberals follows a fairly similar script. The opening statement is one of unbridled catastrophe: Trump is fascism on the ascendant march! Global warming will destroy us in the next x years! (I’m not making any judgments here about the truth of these claims, though for the record, I believe the second but not the first). The comes the followup statement, always curiously anodyne and small: Let’s nominate Klobuchar. How are you going to pay for a Green New Deal? Don’t alienate the moderates.

“All of these specific moves can be rationalized or explained by reference to local factors and considerations, but they seem like part of a pattern, representing something bigger. Perhaps I’ve been reading too much Eric Hobsbawm for a piece I’m working on, but the pattern seems to reflect the reality of life after the Cold War, the end of any viable socialist alternative. For the last quarter-century, we’ve lived in a world, on the left, where the vision of catastrophe is strong, while the answering vision remains inevitably small: baby steps, cap and trade, pay as you go, and so on. Each of these moves might have its own practical justifications, but it’s hard to see how anyone could credibly conjure from those minuscule proposals a blueprint that could in any way be commensurate with the scale of the problem that’s just been mooted, whether it be Trump or climate change.

“I wonder if there is any precedent for this in history. You’ve had ages of catastrophe before, where politicians and intellectuals imagined the deluge and either felt helpless before it or responded with the most cataclysmic and outlandish utopias or dystopias of their own. What seems different today is how the imagination of catastrophe is coupled with this bizarre confidence in moderation and perverse belief in the margin.

“Neoliberal catastrophism?”

George Washington Lived in an Indian World, But His Biographies Have Erased Native People

It’s good to be reminded that imperial expansionism was central to the American project. And it began with the first president, George Washington, in his relationship with natives and in his addiction to land speculation.

The Anti-Federalists warned against making America into another empire. But the Federalists won the war of rhetoric and power. Because of this, we now live in Washington’s dream of an American Empire.

Longreads

Colin G. Calloway | an excerpt adapted from The Indian World of George Washington | Oxford University Press | 23 minutes (6,057 words)

On Monday Afternoon, February 4, 1793, President George Washington sat down to dinner at his official home on Market Street in Philadelphia. Washington’s dinners were often elaborate affairs, with numerous guests, liveried servants, and plenty of food and wine. On this occasion Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of War Henry Knox, Attorney General Edmund Randolph, Governor of the Northwest Territory Arthur St. Clair, and “the Gentlemen of the President’s family” dined with him because they were hosting an official delegation. Six Indian men, two Indian women (see Author’s Note on use of the word “Indian”), and two interpreters, representing the Kaskaskia, Peoria, Piankashaw, Potawatomi, and Mascouten Nations, had traveled more than eight hundred miles from the Wabash and Illinois country to see the president…

View original post 6,088 more words

How To Hide An Empire

“In his book, Immerwahr traces US expansion from the days of Daniel Boone to our modern network of military bases, showing how the United States has always and in a variety of ways been an empire. As early as the 1830s, the United States was taking control of uninhabited islands; by 1898, the United States was having public debates about the merits of imperial power; by the end of World War II, the United States held jurisdiction over more people overseas — 135 million — than on the mainland — 132 million. While the exact overseas holdings and the standing of territories have shifted with time, what has not changed is the troubling way the mainland has ignored, obscured, or dismissed the rights of, atrocities committed against, and the humanity of the people living in these territories. When we see US history through the lens of these territories and peoples, the story looks markedly and often upsettingly different from what many people are told.”

Longreads

Bridey Heing | Longreads | March 2019 | 13 minutes (3,528 words)

What do we think of when we think about the United States and the country’s history? This seemingly simple question rests at the heart of Northwestern University Professor Daniel Immerwahr’s new book, How To Hide An Empire. Immerwahr posits that, for the vast majority of people living in the contiguous United States, our understanding of our own country is fundamentally flawed. This is for one central reason: We omit the millions of people and large territorial holdings outside of the mainland that have, since the founding of the country, also had a claim to the flag.

In his book, Immerwahr traces US expansion from the days of Daniel Boone to our modern network of military bases, showing how the United States has always and in a variety of ways been an empire. As early as the 1830s…

View original post 3,649 more words

What We Know About Saudi Arabia’s Role in 9/11

This article offers further context to a mystery that perplexed so many at the time. When American flights were grounded after the 9/11 terrorist attack, the Saudi royal family in the United States was allowed to take flights out of the country. This was done despite (or one suspects because) the Bush administration knew the terrorists came from Saudi Arabia. They were attempting to defuse a dangerous situation, as US geopolitical power is so dependent on alliance with Saudi Arabia.

That Saudis have been funding religious extremists that regularly commit terrorism has long been an open secret. But this is nothing new since the US has been supporting terrorist organizations, including Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda, going back to the Cold War. In fact, the US intentionally destroyed secularism in the Middle East and placed theocrats into power. This puts the US government in an uncomfortable position after the American people suffered the blowback of their own government’s evil actions.

This information, suppressed and silenced in the past, is dynamite. The US political elite have no rational or moral way of justifying the situation to the American people. They can’t explain why they hid this damning part of the official report from the congressional investigation, why this wasn’t taken seriously before (and by ‘they’ I mean Republicans and Democrats). These aren’t minor connections to Saudi officials and the number of these connections isn’t insignificant. It merits, at the very least, a massive public investigation that is done with full transparency and accountability, especially in light of the recent Saudi assassination of a journalist.

To make matters worse, the Trump administration made the “decision to share sensitive nuclear technology with Saudi Arabia and authorize U.S. companies to build nuclear reactors in that country.” And Trump’s positive response to the Saudis has emboldened them in their war crimes. It is maybe time to rethink our alliances. I understand that alliances are sometimes made out of convenience, that is to say realpolitik. But these cynical relationships of geopolitical power-mongering are discrediting the US on the world stage and burning up our political currency. And if that doesn’t persuade you, the betrayal of the American people by their own government should. It’s impossible to judge this silencing of the truth as protection of the American citizenry and promoting of the public good.

O Society

The Saudi government still says it had no connection to the hijackers. Newly released classified information proves otherwise.

jubeir

Photo credit: NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/Getty Images

Sometimes reality is so absurd, it outstrips anything conspiracy theorists could come up with. More than 13 years after the congressional investigation published its report into the events surrounding the 9/11 attacks, the much discussed “28 pages” on Saudi involvement in the terrorist assault, which were held back as too sensitive to publish, were released.

As it turns out, there are 29 pages, not 28, numbered 415 through 443 in the congressional inquiry into the 9/11 attacks. And deletions on the pages — sometimes words, often whole lines — add up to the equivalent of a total of three pages. So we still are not being given the full story.

It is instantly apparent the widely held belief for…

View original post 848 more words

Low-Carb Diets On The Rise

I’ve been paying close attention to diet this past year. It’s something I’ve had some focus on for decades now, but new info has recently changed the public debate going on. For example, a few years back, the research data from Ancel Keys was reanalyzed and an entirely different conclusion was found to be more plausible — instead of blaming saturated fat, the stronger correlation was to sugar. So much of what mainstream dietitians and nutritionists asserted as fact was based on Keys’ work, but it has since come under a dark cloud of doubt. Simply put, it was horrible science and even worse public health policy.

My own recent interest, though, was piqued in watching the documentary The Magic Pill. It came out in 2017 and several other great documentaries have come out in the last few years, with Nina Teicholz’s documentary in the works. In playing around with diet in the broad sense, I didn’t find much that helped, beyond limiting added sugar and throwing in a few healthy traditional foods (e.g., cultured dairy). It’s not that I ever was much interested in formal diets — some combination of laziness, apathy, and being too independent-minded, hence figuring something out for myself or else failing on my own terms, no doubt plenty of failure was involved and long periods of depressive despair and frustration. I’ve always been more about experimenting and finding what works or doesn’t work for me, if for no other reason than being stubborn in going my own way.

The problem was that nothing fundamentally had worked for my depression that plagued me my whole life nor for the weight gain that hit me as I approached my 40s. It is damn hard struggling to be healthy while depressed, but I did try such things as exercising regularly for it had some immediate palpable effect. Still, it was strange to exercise and yet not lose weight, even if aerobics did lift my mood ever so slightly. I was literally running to stay in place.

That is where The Magic Pill came in. I randomly came across it and watched it out of passing curiosity. Something about the case made was compelling to me, a blend of science and personal experience that rang true to my decades of reading and experimentation. It brought many pieces together: the whole foods emphasis on quality, the vegetarian emphasis on plant foods, the traditional food emphasis on nutrient-density, the low-carb emphasis on avoiding grains, legumes and sugar, the ketogenic emphasis on shifting metabolism, mood and much else, the alternative health emphasis on eliminating processed foods and additives, and the holistic/functional medicine emphasis on seeing the body as a system and part of larger systems.

So, what miraculous diet brings all of this diversity of views together under the umbrella of a coherent understanding? It’s the paleo diet, although some prefer to call it a lifestyle or a philosophy as it isn’t a singular dietary regimen or protocol. It’s about learning how to be healthy by following the examples of traditional societies in combination with the best science available, not only research in diet and nutrition as narrow fields but also research from dentistry, anthropology, archaeology, etc — any and all info that helps us understand the evolution of human health, specifically in explaining what has gone so terribly wrong in industrialized societies with the diseases of civilization. Diet is important, but only one part. Through an alliance with functional medicine, there is a greater focus on what makes for a healthy lifestyle: exercise, stress reduction, toxicity elimination, forest bathing, sun exposure, learning new things, etc… and don’t forget about play, something lost to so many modern adults.

Despite that greater focus of concern, it is the dietary angle that draws people in. Simply put, a lot of people feel better on the paleo diet, often in healing numerous conditions or at least reversing some of the worst symptoms, from conditions like obesity and diabetes to autism and depression to Alzheimer’s and multiple sclerosis, and much else. The paleo diet, as with traditional foods (both inspired by the work of Weston A. Price), is a good introduction to an alternative way of thinking not only about diet but health in general. It seems to be a gateway diet for many who go on to try related diets: primal (paleo plus dairy), Whole30, ketogenic, ketotarian, pegan, pescatarian, carnivore, etc. Primal, as one common example, demonstrates how paleolists have a tendency of drifting toward the similar traditional foods. Paleo is more of a framework than anything else, to the extent that it requires or promotes a paradigm change in one’s attitude.

The greater issue at hand is a potential paradigm change of society. That is the battle going on right now, those promoting that shift and those defending the status quo. Most figures and institutions of authority attack diets like paleo and keto because they are threatening. And the reason they are threatening is because of their growing popularity which in turn comes from their being highly effective for their intended purposes, while also being followed and sometimes promoted by many famous people, from media figures to politicians, including plenty of athletes (according to various sources, and in no particular order):

Bill Clinton, Madonna, Drew Carey, Renee Zellweger, Katie Couric, Al Roker, Halle Berry, Kim Kardashian, Kourtney Kardashian, Vinny Guadagnino, Jordan Peterson, Vanessa Hudgens, Megan Fox, Adriana Lima, Jessica Biel, Blake Lively, Channing Tatum, Eva La Rue, Phil Mickelson, Aisha Tyler, Matthew McConaughey, Edgar Ramirez, Jeb Bush, Kanye West, Christina Aguilera, Jack Osbourne, Kelly Osbourne, Sharon Osbourne, Miley Cyrus, Ursula Grobler, Becca Borawski, Aaron Rodgers, Andrew Flintoff, Jenna Jameson, Savannah Guthrie, Chris Scott, Tamra Judge, Grant Hill, Uma Thurman, Kobe Bryant, Gwyneth Paltrow, LeBron James, Alicia Vikander, Tim McGraw, Kristin Cavallari, Tom Jones, Grant Hill, Mick Jagger, Melissa McCarthy, Jennifer Lopez, Robin Wright, Cindy Crawford, Jennifer Aniston, Guy Sebastian, Elle Macpherson, Courteney Cox, Catherine Zeta Jones, Geri Halliwell, Ben Affleck, Joe Rogan, Brendan Schaub, Shane Watson, Tim Ferris, Jessica Simpson, Rosie O’Donnell, Lindsey Vonn, Alyssa Milano, Kendra Wilkinson, Christina Aguilera, Britney Spears, Joe Manganiello, Tom Kerridge, Jessica Alba, Mariah Carey, Tobey McGuire, Jennifer Hudson, Shania Twain, etc.

These low-carb diets work. People feel better, lose weight, go off their meds, have a lot of energy, and on and on. It’s a paradigm change with a real kick and so the change is largely coming from below, from probably hundreds of thousands of individuals experimenting similar to what I’ve done, including individual doctors who decide to buck the system and sometimes are punished for it (a few key examples are: John Yudkin, Tim Noakes, and Gary Fettke). And every individual this works for ends up being an inspiration to numerous others, even if only to the people they personally know such as family members, friends, neighbors, and coworkers. Other people see it works and so they try it themselves. This is how it went from a minor diet to its present growing momentum and did so in a fairly short period of time.

As I was saying at the beginning of this piece, I’ve been observing this shift. And I’ve come to realize it might be a seismic change going on. Every now and then, I see hints of the impact in the world around me. These alternative views are taking hold and won’t remain alternative for long. They are forcing their way into mainstream awareness. Unsurprisingly, there is backlash.

There is the corporate media, of course, with their typical attack pieces on “fad diets”, ignoring the fact that the keto diet has been medically researched since the early 1900s, the low-carb diet having been the first popular diet starting back in the 1800s, the traditional foods diet based on thousands of years of shared human experience, and the paleo diet as the diet hominids have thrived on for millions of years. The corporate media prefers to ignore what is threatening, until the point it no longer can be ignored, and so we are in that second phase right now, maybe a bit beyond since the mainstream authorities have already adopted some of the alternative views without acknowledging it (e.g., AHA quietly lowering its recommendations of carb intake after pushing a high-carb diet for a half century, as if hoping no one would notice this implicit admission to having been wrong, and wrong in a way that harmed so many). Local media is sometimes more open to new views, though.

The whole EAT-Lancet issue demonstrates the sense of conflict in the air. The authors of the report frame the situation as a crisis for all of humanity and the earth. And they use that as a cudgel to bash the new low-carb challengers, to nip them in the bud, even to the extreme of pushing for international regulations that would force conformity with the high-carb approach of conventional diets that have risen to prominence these past decades — mainstream versions of: vegetarianism, veganism, and Mediterranean (the modern Mediterranean diet as studied after World War II, not the traditional one with high levels of animal foods that existed for millennia before 20th century industrialization of the food system, no noodles or tomatoes prior to modern colonial trade, and surprisingly not much if any olive oil since according to ancient texts it was mainly used for lamp fuel, with animal fat being preferred for cooking). We’ve seen this push with such things as “Veganuary”.

It has become an overtly ideological fight, but maybe it always was. The politicization of diet goes back to the early formalized food laws that became widespread in the Axial Age and regained centrality in the Middle Ages, which for Europeans meant a revival of ancient Greek thought, specifically that of Galen. And it is utterly fascinating that pre-scientific Galenic dietary philosophy has since taken on scientific garb and gets peddled to this day, as a main current in conventional dietary thought (see Food and Faith in Christian Culture ed. by Ken Albala and Trudy Eden with an excerpt to be read here; I made this connection in realizing that Stephen Le, a biological anthropologist, was without awareness parroting Galenic thought in his book 100 Million Years of Food).

But the top-down approach to pushing dietary regimens hasn’t been all that successful in more recent years, maybe because of growing cynicism about past failures. Even with it being heavily promoted by well-funded organizations and government agencies, the high-carb plant-based diets are beginning to find it hard to maintain their footing in the tides of change. According to various data, it’s easy to get people to try veganism for a short period, but few maintain it. Vegetarianism is less restrictive, of course, but consistent adherence is still rare. The vast majority who start veganism or vegetarianism either occasionally eat meat or fish or else eventually give up on the diet. There is big money, including corporate money, behind the campaigns promoting it (most processed foods, including junk food, are technically vegan and big food has come to realize this is an effective way of marketing unhealthy food as healthy). Still, it doesn’t seem to be catching on with the general public, not that I doubt there will be those who continue their games of propaganda, persuasion, and perception management.

People have gotten the message that a plant-based diet is good. That part of the official messaging machine has been successful. Indeed, for decades, most Americans have been increasing their intake of fruits and vegetables and that is a good thing, but as far as that goes the paleo diet and many related diets also tend to recommend high levels of fruits and vegetables. The main advantage the low-carb diets have is that it’s easier to give up bread than to give up all animal foods (including eggs and dairy), though vegetarianism is a decent compromise since it allows some animal foods and that increases availability of the key fat-soluble vitamins. It’s not that low-carb, keto, or paleo vegetarianism is hard to do — so it isn’t an either/or scenario, but many pushing a so-called “plant-based” diet for some reason want to portray it in such dualistic terms, maybe as a way of falsely portraying low-carb as an anti-plant caricature in order to make it seem ridiculous and extremist.

Despite the ideological reaction, there is the growing realization that maybe there is some profit to be had in this emerging trend, as most businesses ultimately don’t care about dietary ideology and will go where the wind blows. New products cater to these alternative diets (paleo creamer, keto supplements, etc) or else old products are repackaged (“Keto Friendly!”). This is why it gets called a “fad diet”. But if being heavily marketed makes a diet a fad, then the same label applies to conventional diets as well that are more heavily marketed than any alternative diet. I’ve also begun seeing paleo and keto magazines, guides, and recipe booklets in grocery stores. Even when dismissed by experts such as in rankings of recommended diets, these “fad diets” nonetheless get mentioned, albeit usually tossed to the bottom of the list. As all this demonstrates, we are long past the silent treatment.

Furthermore, it goes beyond the products specifically marketed as paleo or keto or whatever. Demand has been increasing for organ meats, coconut products (from coconut milk to coconut oil), cauliflower, etc; consumption of eggs is likewise on the rise — all favorites on the paleo diet, in particular, but also favorites for similar diets. Prices have been going up on these items and, because demand sometimes exceeds supply, they can go out of stock at stores. Why are they so sought after? Organ meats are nutrient-dense, coconut milk is a good replacement for dairy and coconut oil for unhealthy vegetable/seed oils, and cauliflower can be used as a replacement for rice, mashed potatoes, tater tots and pizza crust (“The weird thing about cauliflower, though, is that while it has allies, it doesn’t really have adversaries.” ~Rachel Sugar); as for eggs, their popularity needs no explanation now that the cholesterol and saturated fat myths are evaporating.

Even Oprah Winfrey, though financially invested in the conventional Weight Watchers diet (in owning 8% of the company) and a self-declared lover of bread (actual quote: “I love bread!”), has put out a line of products that includes a low-carb pizza with cauliflower crust. This is interesting since, as low-carb diets have gained popularity, the stock of Weight Watchers has plunged 60% and Oprah lost at least 58 million dollars in one night and a loss of 500 million over all, putting Oprah’s star power to a serious test — maybe Oprah decided it is wise to not put all her eggs in one basket, in case Weight Watchers totally tanks. The company is finding it difficult to gain and retain subscribers. Those profiting from established dietary ideology are feeling the pinch.

It’s amusing how Weight Watchers CEO Cindy Grossman responded to the low-carb threat: “We have a keto surge,” she said. “It’s a meme, it’s not like a company, it’s people have keto donuts, and everybody on the diet side look for the quick fix. We’ve been through this before, and we know that we are the program that works.” And that, “We’ve lived through this [competition from fad diets] for 57 years and we’re not going to play a game and we never have.” Good luck with that! Maybe in reassuring stockholders, she also stated that, “We’re going to be science informed and we’re sustainable for the long term.” That is great. Everyone should be science informed. The problem for those trying to hold onto old views is that the science has changed and so has the public’s knowledge of that science.

Most people these days aren’t looking for complicated diets with eating plans and paid services, much less pre-prepared meals to be bought. A subscription model is becoming less appealing, as so much info and other resources are now available online. Besides, the DYI approach (Do It Yourself) is preferred these days. Diets like paleo and keto are simple and straightforward, and they can be easily modified for individual needs or affordability. But even for those looking for a ready-made system like Weight Watchers, there are other options out there that are looking attractive: “Wall Street is clearly nervous, too. JPMorgan analyst Christina Brathwaite downgraded the [Weight Watchers] stock to “underperform” last week and slashed her price target. One of the reasons? She was worried about competition from rival weight-loss service Diet Doctor, which is a proponent of keto.”

In whatever form, like it or not, low-carb diets are on the rise. Even among vegans and vegetarianism, the low-carb approach will probably become more common. Maybe that is why we’ve suddenly seen new low-carb, plant-based diets like Dena Harris’ paleo vegetarianism (2015), Will Coles’s ketotarianism (2018), and Mark Hyman’s peganism (2018). Do a web search about any of this and you’ll find numerous vegans and vegetarians asking about, discussing, or else praising low-carb diets. The same is true in how one sees broad interest in thousands of websites, blogs, and articles. Hundreds upon hundreds of organizations, discussion forums, Reddit groups, Facebook groups, Twitter alliances, etc have sprouted up like mushrooms. More and more are jumping on the low-carb bandwagon, as apparently that is what a large and growing part of the public is demanding. Whether or not it ever was a fad, it is now a movement and it isn’t slowing down.

* * *

Why are these changes happening now? Here is one answer. The wisdom of crowds.

Birth of Snark

The next time you’re irritated by an internet troll, remember that one of the greatest inventions of civilization was snark. For millennia of recorded history, there was no evidence of it. Then suddenly, in the measure of historical time, there it was in all its glory.

Before there was social media and online comments sections, there were letters written in cuneiform. There is something about text-based communication that brings snark out in some people, no matter the medium. But first there had to be a transformation in consciousness.

* * *

The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind
by Julian Jaynes
p. 249-250

Going from Hammurabi’s letters to the state letters of Assyria of the seventh century B.C. is like leaving a thoughtless tedium of undisobeyable directives and entering a rich sensitive frightened grasping recalcitrant aware world not all that different from our own. The letters are addressed to people, not tablets, and probably were not heard, but had to be read aloud. The subjects discussed have changed in a thousand years to a far more extensive list of human activities. But they are also imbedded in a texture of deceit and divination, speaking of police investigations, complaints of lapsing ritual, paranoid fears, bribery, and pathetic appeals of imprisoned officers, all things unknown, unmentioned, and impossible in the world of Hammurabi. Even sarcasm, as in a letter from an Assyrian king to his restive acculturated deputies in conquered Babylon about 670 B.C.:

Word of the king to the pseudo-Babylonians. I am well . .  . So you, so help you heaven, have turned yourselves into Babylonians! And you keep bringing up against my servants charges— false charges,— which you and your master have concocted . .  . The document (nothing but windy words and importunities!) which you have sent me, I am returning to you, after replacing it into its seals. Of course you will say, “What is he sending back to us?” From the Babylonians, my servants and my friends are writing me: When I open and read, behold, the goodness of the shrines, birds of sin . .  . 28

And then the tablet is broken off.

A further interesting difference is their depiction of an Assyrian king. The Babylonian kings of the early second millennium were confident and fearless, and probably did not have to be too militaristic. The cruel Assyrian kings, whose palaces are virile with muscular depictions of lion hunts and grappling with clawing beasts, are in their letters indecisive frightened creatures appealing to their astrologers and diviners to contact the gods and tell them what to do and when to do it. These kings are told by their diviners that they are beggars or that their sins are making a god angry; they are told what to wear, or what to eat, or not to eat until further notice: 29 “Something is happening in the skies; have you noticed? As far as I am concerned, my eyes are fixed. I say, ‘What phenomenon have I failed to see, or failed to report to the king? Have I failed to observe something that does not pertain to his lot?’.  .  . As to that eclipse of the sun of which the king spoke, the eclipse did not take place. On the 27th I shall look again and send in a report. From whom does the lord my king fear misfortune? I have no information whatsoever.” 30

Does a comparison of these letters, a thousand years apart, demonstrate the alteration of mentality with which we are here concerned? Of course, a great deal of discussion could follow such a question. And research: content analyses, comparisons of syntax, uses of pronouns, questions, and future tenses, as well as specific words which appear to indicate subjectivity in the Assyrian letters and which are absent in the Old Babylonian. But such is our knowledge of cuneiform at present that a thorough analysis is not possible at this time. Even the translations I have used are hedged in favor of smooth English and familiar syntax and so are not to be completely trusted. Only an impressionist comparison is possible, and the result, I think, is clear: that the letters of the seventh century B.C. are far more similar to our own consciousness than those of Hammurabi a thousand years earlier.

The Secret of Health

I’m going to let you in on a secret. But before I get to that… There is much conflict over diet. Many will claim that their own is the one true way. And some do have more research backing them up than others. But even that research has been extremely limited and generally of low quality. Hence, all the disagreement and debate.

There have been few worthwhile studies where multiple diets are compared on equal footing. And the results are mixed. In some studies, vegetarians live longer. But in others, they live less long. Well, it depends on what kind of vegetarian diet in what kind of population and compared against which other diet or diets. The Mediterranean diet also has showed positive results and the Paleo diet has as well, although most often the comparison is against a control group that isn’t on any particular diet.

It turns out that almost any diet is better than the Standard American Diet (SAD). Eating dog shit would be improvement over what the average American shoves into their mouth-hole. I should know. I shudder at the diet of my younger days, consisting of junk food and fast food. Like most Americans, I surely used to be malnourished, along also with likely having leaky gut, inflammation, insulin sensitivity, toxic overload, and who knows what else. Any of the changes I’ve made in my diet over the years has been beneficial.

So, here is the great secret. It matters less which specific diet you have, in the general sense. That is particular true in decreasing some of the worst risk factors. Many diets can help you lose weight and such, from low fat to high fat, from omnivorian to vegetarian. That isn’t to say all diets are equal in the long term, but there are commonalities to be found in any healthy diet. Let me lay it out. All health diets do some combination of the following.

Eliminate or lessen:

  • processed foods
  • vegetable oils
  • carbs, especially simple carbs
  • grains, especially wheat
  • sugar, especially fructose
  • dairy, especially cow milk
  • foods from factory-farmed animals
  • artificial additives

Emphasize and increase:

  • whole foods
  • omega-3s, including but not limited to seafood
  • fiber, especially prebiotics
  • probiotics, such as fermented/cultured
  • foods that are organic, local, and in season
  • foods from pasture-raised or grass-fed animals
  • nutrient-density
  • fat-soluble vitamins

There are some foods that are harder to categorize. Even though many people have problems with cow milk, especially of the variety with A1 casein, more people are better able to deal with ghee which has the problematic proteins removed. And pasture-raised cows produce nutrient-dense milk, as they produce nutrient-dense organ meats and meat filled with omega-3s. So, it’s not that a diet has to include everything I listed. But the more it follows these the greater will be the health benefits.

It does matter to some degree, for example, where you get your nutrient-density. Fat-soluble vitamins are hard to find in non-animal sources, a problem for vegans. But even a vegan can vastly increase their nutrient intake by eating avocados, leafy greens, seaweed, etc. The main point is any increase in nutrients can have a drastic benefit to health. And the greater amount and variety of nutrients the greater the improvement.

That is why any diet you can imagine comes in healthy and unhealthy versions. No matter the diet, anyone who decreases unhealthy fats/oils and increases healthy fats/oils will unsurprisingly increase their health. But as an omnivore could fill their plate with factory-farmed meat and dairy, a vegan could fill their plate with toxic soy-based processed foods and potato chips. The quality of a diet is in the details.

Still, it is easier to include more of what I listed in some diets than others. Certain nutrients are only found in animal sources and so a vegan has to be careful about supplementing what is otherwise lacking. A diet of whole foods that doesn’t require supplementation, however, is preferable.

That is why there are a surprisingly large number of self-identified vegans and vegetarians who will, at least on occasion, eat fish and other seafood. That also might be why the Mediterranean diet and Paleo diet can be so healthy as well, in their inclusion of these foods. Weston A. Price observed some of the healthiest populations in the world were those who lived near the ocean. And this is why cod liver oil was traditionally one of the most important parts of the Western diet, high in both omega-3s and fat soluble vitamins and much else as well.

Whatever the details one focuses upon, the simple rule is increase the positives and decrease the negatives. It’s not that difficult, as long as one knows which details matter most. The basic trick to any health diet is to not eat like the average American. That is the secret.

* * *

Getting that out of the way, here is my bias.

My own dietary preferences are based on functional medicine, traditional foods, paleo diet, nutritional science, anthropology, and archaeology — basically, any and all relevant evidence and theory. This is what informs the list I provided above, with primary focus on the Paleo diet which brings all the rest together. That is what differentiates the Paleo diet from all others, in that it is a systematic approach that scientifically explains why the diet works. It focuses not just on one aspect but all known aspects, including lifestyle and such.

Something like the Mediterranean diet is far different. It has been widely researched and it is healthy, at least relative to what it has been tested against. There are multiple limitations to health claims about it.

First, the early research was done after World War II and , because of the ravages to the food supply, the diet they were eating then was different than what they were eating before. The healthy adults observed were healthy because of the diet they grew up on, not because of the deprivation diet they experienced after the war. That earlier diet was filled with meat and saturated fat, but it also had lots of vegetables and olive oil as. As in the US, the health of the Mediterranean people had decreased as well from one generation to the next. So, arguing that the post-war Mediterranean diet was healthier than the post-war American diet wasn’t necessarily making as strong of a claim as it first appeared, as health was declining in both countries but with the decline in the latter being far worst.

Working with that problematic research alone, there was no way to get beyond mere associations in order to determine causation. As such, it couldn’t be stated with any certainty which parts of the diet were healthy, which parts unhealthy, and which parts neutral. It was a diet based on associations, not on scientific understanding of mechanisms and the evidence in support. It’s the same kind of associative research that originally linked saturated fat to heart disease, only to later discover that it was actually sugar that was the stronger correlation. The confusion came because, in the American population because of the industrialized diet, habits of saturated fat consumption had become associated with that of sugar, but there was no study that ever linked saturated fat to heart disease. It was a false or meaningless association, a correlation that it turns out didn’t imply causation.

That is the kind of mistake that the Paleo diet seeks to avoid. The purpose is not merely to look for random associations and hope that they are causal without ever proving it. Based on other areas of science, paleoists make hypotheses that can be tested, both in clinical studies and in personal experience. The experimental attitude is central.

That is why there is no single Paleo diet, in the way there is a single Mediterranean diet. As with hunter-gatherers in the real world, there is a diversity of Paleo diets that are tailored to different purposes, health conditions, and understandings. Dr. Terry Wahl’s Paleo diet is a plant-based protocol for multiple sclerosis, Dr. Dale Bredesen’s Paleo diet is part of an even more complex protocol including ketosis for Alzheimer’s. Other ketogenic Paleo diets target the treatment of obesity, autism, etc. Still other Paleo diets allow more carbs and so don’t prioritize ketosis at all. There are even Paleo diets that are so plant-based as to be vegetarian, with or without the inclusion of fish and seafood, more similar to that of Dr. Wahls.

Which is the Paleo diet? All of them. But what do they all have in common? What I listed above. They all take a multi-pronged approach. Other diets work to the degree they overlap with the Paleo diet, especially nutrient-density. Sarah Ballantyne, a professor and medical biophycisist, argues that nutrient-density might be the singlemost important factor and she might be right. Certainly, you could do worse than focusing on that alone. That has largely been the focus of traditional foods, as inspired by the work of Weston A. Price. Most diets seem to improve nutrient-density, one way or another, even if they don’t do it as fully as the best diets. The advantage of the Paleo diet(s), as with traditional foods and functional medicine, is that there is scientific understanding about why specific nutrients matter, even as our overall knowledge of nutrients has many gaps. Still, knowledge with gaps is better than anything else at the moment.

The list of dos and don’ts is based on the best science available. The science likely will change and so dietary recommendations will be modified accordingly. But if a diet is based on ideology instead, new information can have no impact. Fortunately, most people advocating diets are increasingly turning to a scientific approach. This might explain why all diets are converging on the same set of principles. Few people would have been talking about nutrient-density back when the FDA made its initial dietary recommendations as seen in the Food Pyramid. Yet now the idea of nutrient-density has become so scientifically established that it is almost common knowledge.

More than the Paleo diet as specific foods to eat and avoid, what the most important takeaway is the scientific and experimental approach that its advocates have expressed more strongly than most. That is the way to treat the list I give, for each person is dealing with individual strengths and weaknesses, a unique history of contributing factors and health concerns. So, even if you dismiss the Paleo diet for whatever reason, don’t dismiss the principles upon which the Paleo diet is based (for vegetarians, see: Ketotarian by Dr. Will Cole and The Paleo Vegetarian Diet by Dena Harris). Anyone following any diet will find something of use, as tailored to their own needs.

That is the purpose of my presenting generalized guidelines that apply to all diets. It’s a way of getting past the ideological rhetoric in order to get at the substance of health itself, to get at the causal level. The secret is that there is no single healthy diet, not in any simplistic sense, even as every healthy diet has much in common.

REAL Democracy History Calendar: November 26 – December 2

“Injustice boils in men’s hearts as does steel in its cauldron, ready to pour forth, white hot, in the fullness of time.”
~ Mother Jones

November 26

2003 — Statement of Lewis Pitts, former Program on Corporations, Law & Democracy (POCLAD) principal
“I think what I believe is totally balanced and therefore moderate. I think the essential political unit is the individual, and not corporations. So in that sense I guess I’m a populist.”
http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/lifetime-fighter/Content?oid=1190831

November 27

2012 – Published article, “Reconsider Buckley v. Valeo” by Sam Fedele, OpEd News
“ Buckley’s ‘money is speech’ doctrine also puts space between members of the privileged class itself by creating a form of speech which scales with wealth. The more money one has the more speech one has. This rings Orwellian. Some speakers are more equal than others. And with the media focus of modern elections, political speech that effectively reaches the masses is reserved for the modern aristocracy alone.”
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Reconsider-Buckley-v-Vale-by-Sam-Fedele-121126-574.html

November 28

2011 — Published article, “’We the People’ versus ‘We the Corporation’: Sentiment Builds for…

View original post 1,014 more words

DOCTOR JILL

“Although I rejoiced in my perception of connection to all that is, I shuddered at the awareness that I was no longer a normal human being. How on earth would I exist as a member of the human race with this heightened perception that we are each a part of it all, and that the life force energy within each of us contains the power of the universe? How could I fit in with our society when I walk the earth with no fear? I was, by anyone’s standard, no longer normal. In my own unique way, I had become severely mentally ill. And I must say, there was both freedom and challenge for me in recognizing that our perception of the external world, and our relationship to it, is a product of our neurological circuitry. For all those years of my life, I really had been a figment of my own imagination!”

Jill Bolte Taylor, My Stroke of Insight: A Brain Scientist’s Personal Journey
Read the whole book here.

TEETH, FEET & FINGERS

Image result for jill bolte taylor

When I lost [the] left hemisphere [of my brain] and its language centers, I also lost the clock that would break my moments into consecutive brief instances. Instead of having my moments prematurely stunted, they became open-ended, and I felt no rush to do anything. Like walking along the beach, or just hanging out in the beauty of nature, I shifted from the doing-consciousness of my left brain to the being consciousness of my right brain. I morphed from feeling small and isolated to feeling enormous and expansive. I stopped thinking in language and shifted to taking new pictures of what was going on in the present moment. I was not capable of deliberating about past or future-related ideas because those cells were incapacitated. All I could perceive was right here, right now, and it was beautiful.

My entire self-concept shifted as I no longer perceived myself as a single, a solid, an entity with boundaries that separated me from the entities around…

View original post 893 more words