Conflicting information about artificial sweeteners in the Lifestyle section

[Villages PL]

Both were on the front page of of the Lifestyle section of The Daily Sun.

July 3, 2012: Dr. David Lipschitz stated in his weekly column that artificial sweeteners lead to a craving for sweets. His statement was backed up by Harvard obesity expert, Dr. David Ludwig, who wrote in the Harvard Letter that no-calorie sweeteners contribute to weight gain.

July 18, 2012: A Daily Sun reporter wrote a "full page" feature story with the following headings: NO SUGAR ADDED / Village of Sanebel resident makes delicious, healthy desserts.

The woman in the story used Stevia, an artificial sweetener. She said she started doing this because her daugter had a condition that allowed for no more than 5 grams of sugar. But there was no mention of what this condition consisted of. Then she was quoted as recommending it for anyone who can't have sugar.

My Opinion: I think it's wrong to promote artificial sweeteners across-the-board to everyone, as being healthy, with no evidence to back it up. Especially after the July 3 column, by Dr. Lipschitz, suggests that artificial sweeteners contribute to weight gain.

Note: Refined (granulated) sugar is considered a processed food that contains empty calories and is not considered good for one's health. But I don't think artificial sweeteners are considered to be processed foods. They are imitations of processed foods. If they are not processed foods, what are they? They must be considered drugs, I suppose, made up by chemists in chemistry labs. They are highly addictive and reinforce one's addiction to all sweets.

[Patty55]

Stevia is not artificial.

[Villages PL]

Stevia is not artificial.

In the column by Dr. Lipschitz, Stevia appears to be classified as artificial even though it is "plant-derived".

He said: Artificial sweeteners include: 1) aspartame 2) sucralose 3) saccharin and 4) plant-derived Stevia

Yahoo!-search the following: Is Stevia an Artificial Sweetener?

[pooh]

Not to be argumentative, but what is the conflict? Not all individuals who ingest sugar are addicted to it. I do agree that artificial sweeteners may not be a good choice for many....messes with insulin working as it should. And, the newspaper is like many other hometown newspapers, highlighting community members and something interesting about them. The newspaper IS NOT a health publication.i

[Villages PL]

Not to be argumentative, but what is the conflict? Not all individuals who ingest sugar are addicted to it. I do agree that artificial sweeteners may not be a good choice for many....messes with insulin working as it should.

Okay, let's assume that not everyone is addicted. Maybe it's the word "addicted" that you object to. If a person uses it on a regular basis, I suppose you could say it's a habit.

The conflict is: The July 3 column indicates that artificial sweeteners contribute to weight gain. And the July 18 "feature article" flat out states that desserts made with artificial sweeteners are "healthy".

Obviously, if you're only looking at short term results, you may not see any harm. Weight gain is usually something that happens gradually over a long period of time. And there's nothing good about weight gain if you don't need the extra weight. There are studies that show a person's risk of death increases as their BMI increases.

[2BNTV]

Everyone, especially if they have diabetes needs to find out from their doctor if they can have an artificial sweetener and in what quantity. Everybody's case is different with diabetes. I have a mild form that I watch very carefully and know where my limits are.

I think if one cheats by eating sugar in any form tends to lead to wanting more sugar.

The best exercise for one not gaining weight is push aways from the dinner table. :smiley:

[pooh]

Okay, let's assume that not everyone is addicted. Maybe it's the word "addicted" that you object to. If a person uses it on a regular basis, I suppose you could say it's a habit.

The conflict is: The July 3 column indicates that artificial sweeteners contribute to weight gain. And the July 18 "feature article" flat out states that desserts made with artificial sweeteners are "healthy".

Obviously, if you're only looking at short term results, you may not see any harm. Weight gain is usually something that happens gradually over a long period of time. And there's nothing good about weight gain if you don't need the extra weight. There are studies that show a person's risk of death increases as their BMI increases.

Maybe the word addiction does sit wrong with me. Again, the newspaper is just that, a newspaper and not a health magazine, a health study report, it's a paper compiled for residents of the area it is circulated in. As others have pointed out, it provides information about community members, what the might like, what they may prepare for meals or dessert. How the heck you got this to the point you're trying to make seems just a bit preachy to me, VPL. As much as we believe a particular way of living or doing things is correct, not all will agree with us. One plan doesn't necessarily fit all. Weight gain as we age isn't always a good thing, but there may be some who benefit from a few more pounds, you never know. We are not privy to all medical information and some making an assumption that one way is the only way, isn't necessarily correct.

[asianthree]

I grown my own stevia, steep the leaves and have use this for as long as i can remember...Honey used for baking...We never had sugar in our house growning up (bees in the back yard)..so 50 years later still no sugar or yellow packets in my home

[Villages PL]

Maybe the word addiction does sit wrong with me. Again, the newspaper is just that, a newspaper and not a health magazine, a health study report, it's a paper compiled for residents of the area it is circulated in.

You're making excuses for a newspaper that carries a weekly health column by Dr. David Lipschitz and then just a few weeks later contradicts the information in that column by stating that artificially sweetened desserts are healthy. Why are you making excuses for that?


As others have pointed out, it provides information about community members, what the might like, what they may prepare for meals or dessert. How the heck you got this to the point you're trying to make seems just a bit preachy to me, VPL.

It's more than just saying what others might like when they say it's healthy and when it's recommended to everyone across-the-board. There's nothing preachy about it; it's just a statement of facts.

As much as we believe a particular way of living or doing things is correct, not all will agree with us. One plan doesn't necessarily fit all.

You're imagining that was my intent as if I had stated that everyone must agree with me and live the way I live. Did I actually say that one plan must fit all? You're reading things into what I said that I never said. How do you justify that?

Weight gain as we age isn't always a good thing, but there may be some who benefit from a few more pounds, you never know. We are not privy to all medical information and some making an assumption that one way is the only way, isn't necessarily correct.

It seems you're making excuses for artificial sweeteners and trying to reinforce the idea that I'm telling people that one way is the only way.

[pooh]

You're making excuses for a newspaper that carries a weekly health column by Dr. David Lipschitz and then just a few weeks later contradicts the information in that column by stating that artificially sweetened desserts are healthy. Why are you making excuses for that?




It's more than just saying what others might like when they say it's healthy and when it's recommended to everyone across-the-board. There's nothing preachy about it; it's just a statement of facts.



You're imagining that was my intent as if I had stated that everyone must agree with me and live the way I live. Did I actually say that one plan must fit all? You're reading things into what I said that I never said. How do you justify that?



It seems you're making excuses for artificial sweeteners and trying to reinforce the idea that I'm telling people that one way is the only way.

I am not making excuses for the newspaper....it is just that, a newspaper and again, not a scientific/medical journal. Cripes, there is even conflict within the scientific/medical community about many things. I have no idea where you came from, but your hometown newspapers never printed what you feel to be conflicting messages?
A newspaper prints stories or articles they think will appeal to a wide group of subscribers and some of the stories could be contradictory. Maybe you've taken on the task of pointing out these contradictions. Do you think individuals don't have the sense to do what's right for them? You read lots about certain studies....are you reading this info from the books written by individuals you cite or do you get the chance to read their actual studies? Again, study reports can be presented to point out what is sought and the negatives, minimized. But, I digress, that's not the topic under discussion.

For some, artifically sweetened desserts may be a better choice than a more calorie laden one. Desserts are not evil, many can eat them within limits that do not damage their health. Taken in moderation, they may allow some individuals a choice every once in a while. Not all feel they have to live with the more stringent food guidelines you live with, VPL. You can tell me again, as you have in the past, that your food choices aren't limited, but I don't agree with you. Personally, I don't like artificial sweetners, they don't taste good to me. If I decide to have a soda, it's not going to be diet and I dilute it with water....less sugar, fewer calories, enough of the taste and I'm not filling up on empty calories.



You may not feel you're "preaching" when indeed, it is being perceived by me as just that. Your message is more subliminal than you seem to recognize.

Again, live long and prosper VPL, you are doing what you feel is best for you...:)

[Villages PL]

I am not making excuses for the newspaper....it is just that, a newspaper and again, not a scientific/medical journal. Cripes, there is even conflict within the scientific/medical community about many things. I have no idea where you came from, but your hometown newspapers never printed what you feel to be conflicting messages?

I thought this was important enough to bring to the attention of others because it involves health. And this being a Medical and Health Discussion board I think it's a worthwhile topic.


A newspaper prints stories or articles they think will appeal to a wide group of subscribers and some of the stories could be contradictory. Maybe you've taken on the task of pointing out these contradictions.

Bingo! Why not bring it to the attention of others, especially those who value their health and are looking for the most up-to-date and accurate information.


Do you think individuals don't have the sense to do what's right for them?

Bingo again! A majority of people apparently don't have the sense to do what's right for them. That's why we have a high percentage of overweight people in the U.S., and that includes The Villages. Just look around when you go shopping or down to the square.


For some, artifically sweetened desserts may be a better choice than a more calorie laden one. Desserts are not evil, many can eat them within limits that do not damage their health. Taken in moderation, they may allow some individuals a choice every once in a while.

I just present the information and people can do whatever they want with it.


You may not feel you're "preaching" when indeed, it is being perceived by me as just that. Your message is more subliminal than you seem to recognize.

It works both ways. There are those who preach against any health messages. Perhaps it reminds them of what they're doing wrong and they don't want to be reminded.

Again, live long and prosper VPL, you are doing what you feel is best for you...:)

I wish you the same as you believe you are also doing what's best for you.

[pooh]

I do beg to differ with you on some of the information being the most accurate....ah, that's not always true. Many times studies are released prematurely or without controls used to help veryify that results are indeed accurate....and then time passes and results shown aren't always as shown initially.

Again, I will state that it isn't necessarily the newspapers' responsibility to act as medical literature....stories that are presented are currently in the news in some manner and again, there may be conflicting views and/or studies.

You assume that people don't know what's right for them...well, most people do take exception when told how they should live their lives. There are many reasons for people being overweight, some are indeed heavy from overeating, lack of exercise, others have medical situations that impact their life, preventing them from keeping their figure more on the lean side.
People eat for various reasons....we aren't always privy to why.

Food doesn't cure everything, VPL, I know you realize that. A good diet, and for some that includes animal products, can help maintain homeostasis.

Please don't think I'm preaching against health....I'm more concerned with sources of information. Again, I will state, that not all studies may not be as accurate as they first appear.

We must meet one day VPL, I'll buy you a drink. Stay well.

[Villages PL]

I do beg to differ with you on some of the information being the most accurate....ah, that's not always true. Many times studies are released prematurely or without controls used to help veryify that results are indeed accurate....and then time passes and results shown aren't always as shown initially.

So you're making a case not to believe any studies because some are later proved to be inacurate. With that attitude you can take these sweetener drugs forever with the hope that someday they will be judged harmless.

Again, I will state that it isn't necessarily the newspapers' responsibility to act as medical literature....stories that are presented are currently in the news in some manner and again, there may be conflicting views and/or studies.

I still think it's worthwhile to point out the conflicting information, especially when the conflict is between a Harvard obesity expert and people who have no health credentials.

You assume that people don't know what's right for them...well, most people do take exception when told how they should live their lives. There are many reasons for people being overweight, some are indeed heavy from overeating, lack of exercise, others have medical situations that impact their life, preventing them from keeping their figure more on the lean side.
People eat for various reasons....we aren't always privy to why.

In my opinion, they may take exception if they are seriously addicted to a poor lifestyle. All the reasons you just gave usually come under the heading of self inflicted.

Food doesn't cure everything, VPL, I know you realize that. A good diet, and for some that includes animal products, can help maintain homeostasis.

The more one studies nutrition & health it should become clear that there are different levels of precaution. It all depends on how safe you want to play it. And at some point of aging some people may develop conditions that are irreversible so that they no longer have much choice of what they can eat.

Please don't think I'm preaching against health....I'm more concerned with sources of information. Again, I will state, that not all studies may not be as accurate as they first appear.

You shouldn't be too concerned because many of these studies have been done over and over and are double blind studies. But I notice you never expressed any doubt that the Daily Sun reporter might be wrong. And you never expressed any doubt that the Villages woman who was interviewed might be wrong. You only doubt the doctors. So it seems you are highly biased in favor of artificial sweetener drugs.

We must meet one day VPL, I'll buy you a drink. Stay well.

I was thinking the same thing that it would be interesting to meet some day. Although I kind of doubt that will happen as we don't seem to have anything in common. The only thing I ever drink is water. :)

Be well.

[pooh]

Oh, don't make assumptions about me, VPL, I only drink water and skim milk,,,,witH the very occasional diluted soda. No artificial sweetners for me...they taste awful and I don't need that many sweets anyhow.

I'm a biologist by education and I question all results...requiring lots of proof.
What happens in a petri dish or test tube doesn't always work in a human body....and not all the books published by biologists, some physicians and nutritionalists are gospel.

Oh, and I do enjoy talking with you VPL.

[Villages PL]

Oh, don't make assumptions about me, VPL, I only drink water and skim milk,,,,witH the very occasional diluted soda. No artificial sweetners for me...they taste awful and I don't need that many sweets anyhow.

You assumed I was making an assumption? I was only telling you that I only drink water. When I said that we probably don't have anything in common I meant other things besides drinking. Anyway, you are always making assumptions about me. So now you know how it feels. If you don't use artificial sweetners, why are you so defensive about them?

I'm a biologist by education and I question all results...requiring lots of proof.
What happens in a petri dish or test tube doesn't always work in a human body....and not all the books published by biologists, some physicians and nutritionalists are gospel.

Questioning is good. But what does your education tell you about amature reporters and the people they interview? What was your specialty?

Oh, and I do enjoy talking with you VPL.

I enjoy talking with you too; you make me think.

[pooh]

Well, we both can make assumptions, :icon_wink: that's common ground isn't it...lol.

No speciality area, just general....covered stuff from chemistry to physics, birds to fish to human anatomy and physiology to genetics. It was interesting, fun and stuff I really enjoyed and still do.

It is frustrating to watch and listen to some who report "science" when they really have no knowledge of some of the processes that are involved, and they draw conclusions that "seem" logical when in fact, they are not. But, it is just as frustrating for computer geeks when they have to explain and explain just what's going on in that little container of circuit boards....;). Everyone has something they do well or better than another. My husband has the patience of a saint when I walk up to him with my laptop in my hands, ranting on that he "has to fix this dam thing" or I'm going to go crazy! I, we, all of us, have more to learn about the body and how and why it works the way it does, we discover something new so frequently, it's amazing!

I've read many of those books put out by various doctors, some MDs, some PhDs......interesting concepts, but in actuality, some of what is said to work for maximum whatever, never does. The plans quickly fall out of favor because they just don't work well. Remember that plan from years ago....lots and lots of fruit for breakfast? can't remember what it was called.....very bad for diabetics, but this author was convinced it was okay.

I recognize that the diet plan you use to maintain your wellness is sound for you, though one does have to plan well to make sure essential nutrients aren't missing. Nutritional deficiencies don't always manifest right away and could take years to show. I am neither a physician nor nutritionalist, but do have some understanding of what a body needs to function, physically and biochemically.
Each day, more and more of the mysteries of what the human body is, unfold. It's amazing to have this information made known to us. Everyone wants to make a buck and may do so with little regard for really dispensing accurate information....we just have to be diligent and do our best to make certain that what we do to maintain ourselves, is true and of benefit.


I've rambled on enough, VPL. Again I will wish you to live long and prosper.

[lightworker888]

What I am getting from the ongoing discussion is a good example of life being shades of grey and not black and white, at least that is what it feels like. From the languaging it feels that VPL believes that X & Y can't help but lead to Z, while Pooh's languaging is making room for other possibilities. From my experience, the human body/mind is so complex that I believe it is impossible be sure of how a body will respond to a particular diet. Generally speaking, we know that veggies are good for us, but I'm sure there are many people who are healthy on a non veggie diet, or at least I wouldn't want to say that there was no one who could be healthy on a non veggie diet.

I have to say that VPL your info although not new, made me look again at our menus and to be more conscious about including more salads. But I find that it isn't useful or calming for me to be thinking about my food choices so much. Food combining has always worked best for me and although I have adopted a gluten free diet and practically eliminated our use of sugar, I find that I am not as occupied with the choices now as when I tried to maintain a stricter more vegetarian style diet. It allows for living more in the grey and feeling more balanced.

Don't know if that makes any sense but wanted to share what I was feeling as I read the dialogue you two were having.

[pooh]

What I am getting from the ongoing discussion is a good example of life being shades of grey and not black and white, at least that is what it feels like. From the languaging it feels that VPL believes that X & Y can't help but lead to Z, while Pooh's languaging is making room for other possibilities. From my experience, the human body/mind is so complex that I believe it is impossible be sure of how a body will respond to a particular diet. Generally speaking, we know that veggies are good for us, but I'm sure there are many people who are healthy on a non veggie diet, or at least I wouldn't want to say that there was no one who could be healthy on a non veggie diet.

I have to say that VPL your info although not new, made me look again at our menus and to be more conscious about including more salads. But I find that it isn't useful or calming for me to be thinking about my food choices so much. Food combining has always worked best for me and although I have adopted a gluten free diet and practically eliminated our use of sugar, I find that I am not as occupied with the choices now as when I tried to maintain a stricter more vegetarian style diet. It allows for living more in the grey and feeling more balanced.

Don't know if that makes any sense but wanted to share what I was feeling as I read the dialogue you two were having.

Hope VPL agrees with your assessment of our discussions, I do. Trying to safeguard one's health is something we should all be doing. Veggies and fruits are indeed good foods for most individuals, without a doubt, at least according to current information available....:icon_wink:

I, too, do much better if I don't over think diet, though there are some foods, considered "good" that my particular constitution just doesn't do well with.

I know this discussion has made some reading our posts take a look at what they ingest. That's generally a good thing...;)

I understand what you're saying, you stated it well.

Nite, lightworker.

[PennBF]

Health and safetyA 1985 study reported that steviol, a breakdown product from stevioside and rebaudioside (two of the sweet steviol glycosides in the stevia leaf), is a mutagen in the presence of a liver extract of rats pretreated with a PCB blend[44] — but this finding was criticized on procedural grounds that the data were mishandled in such a way that even distilled water would appear mutagenic.[45] Over the following years, bioassay, cell culture, and animal studies have shown mixed results in terms of toxicology and adverse effects of stevia constituents. While reports emerged that found steviol and stevioside to be weak mutagens,[46][47] the bulk of studies show an absence of harmful effects.[48][49] In a 2008 review, 14 of 16 studies cited showed no genotoxic activity for stevioside, 11 of 15 studies showed no genotoxic activity for steviol, and no studies showed genotoxicity for rebaudioside A. No evidence for stevia constituents causing cancer or birth defects has been found.[48][49]

In relation to diabetes, studies have shown stevia to have a revitalizing effect on β-cells of pancreas,[10] improve insulin sensitivity in rats,[50] and possibly even to promote additional insulin production,[51] helping to reverse diabetes and metabolic syndrome.[52] Stevia consumed before meals significantly reduced postprandial insulin levels compared to both aspartame and sucrose.[53] A 2011 review study concluded that stevia sweeteners would likely benefit diabetic patients.[54]

Preliminary human studies suggest stevia can help reduce hypertension,[55] although another study has shown it to have no effect on hypertension.[56] Indeed, millions of Japanese have been using stevia for over thirty years with no reported or known harmful effects.[57] Similarly, stevia leaves have been used for centuries in South America, spanning multiple generations in ethnomedical tradition as a treatment for diabetes mellitus type 2.[58]

In 2006, the World Health Organization (WHO) performed a thorough evaluation of recent experimental studies of stevioside and steviols conducted on animals and humans, and concluded "stevioside and rebaudioside A are not genotoxic in vitro or in vivo and that the genotoxicity of steviol and some of its oxidative derivatives in vitro is not expressed in vivo."[59] The report also found no evidence of carcinogenic activity. Furthermore, the report noted "stevioside has shown some evidence of pharmacological effects in patients with hypertension or with diabetes mellitus type 2",[59] but concluded further study was required to determine proper dosage. The WHO's Joint Experts Committee on Food Additives has approved, based on long-term studies, an acceptable daily intake of steviol glycoside of up to 4 milligrams per kilogram of body weight.[60]

Beginning in 2009 in the United States, the U.S. FDA considers "Rebiana (rebaudioside A) to be Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS)".[61] With respect to the measure of toxicity, which can be described as the median lethal dose or LD50, a report submitted to the FDA documents "the observed LD50 values were 5.2 g/kg bw for male hamsters and 6.1 g/kg bw for female hamsters."[61] The report includes a detailed list of international studies, references, and chemical analysis.[61]

Two 2010 review studies found no health concerns with stevia or its sweetening extracts.[54][62] In addition, a 2009 review study found that stevioside and related compounds have anti-hyperglycemic, anti-hypertensive, anti-inflammatory, anti-tumor, anti-diarrheal, diuretic, and immunomodulatory actions.[63]

The European Food Safety Authority evaluated the safety of steviol glycosides, extracted from the leaves of the Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni plant, as sweetener and expressed its opinion on 10 March 2010. The Authority established an Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) for steviol glycosides, expressed as steviol equivalents, of 4 mg/kg bodyweight/day. On 11 November 2011, the European Commission allowed the usage of steviol glycosides as a food additive, establishing maximum content levels for different types of foods and beverages.[64]

[edit] Political controversyIn 1991, after receiving an anonymous industry complaint, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) labeled stevia as an "unsafe food additive" and restricted its import.[34][65][66] The FDA's stated reason was "toxicological information on stevia is inadequate to demonstrate its safety."[67] This ruling was controversial, as stevia proponents pointed out that this designation violated the FDA's own guidelines under which natural substances used prior to 1958, with no reported adverse effects, should be generally recognized as safe (GRAS) as long as the substance was being used in the same way and format as prior to 1958.

Stevia, the plant, is ineligible as a natural substance for patent protection. A process for extracting its "active ingredient" could, all other legal requirements being met, be patented. As a consequence, since the import ban in 1991, marketers and consumers of stevia have shared a belief that the FDA acted in response to industry pressure.[34] Arizona congressman Jon Kyl, for example, called the FDA action against stevia "a restraint of trade to benefit the artificial sweetener industry."[68] To protect the complainant, the FDA deleted names in the original complaint in its responses to requests filed under the Freedom of Information Act.[34]

Stevia remained banned until after the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act forced the FDA in 1995 to revise its stance to permit stevia to be used as a dietary supplement, although not as a food additive – a position that stevia proponents regard as contradictory because it simultaneously labels stevia as safe and unsafe, depending on how it is sold.[1]

Unresolved questions remain about whether metabolic processes can produce a mutagen from stevia in animals.[citation needed] Early studies prompted the European Commission in 1999 to ban stevia's use in food in the European Union pending further research.[69] More recent data compiled in the safety evaluation released by the World Health Organization in 2006[59] suggest that these policies may be obsolete. Since 2008, the Russian Federation has allowed stevioside as a food additive "in the minimal dosage required".[27]

In December 2008, the FDA gave a "no objection" approval for GRAS status to Truvia (developed by Cargill and The Coca-Cola Company) and PureVia (developed by PepsiCo and the Whole Earth Sweetener Company, a subsidiary of Merisant), both of which use rebaudioside A derived from the Stevia plant.[70]:popcorn:

[Villages PL]

I've read many of those books put out by various doctors, some MDs, some PhDs......interesting concepts, but in actuality, some of what is said to work for maximum whatever, never does. The plans quickly fall out of favor because they just don't work well. Remember that plan from years ago....lots and lots of fruit for breakfast? can't remember what it was called.....very bad for diabetics, but this author was convinced it was okay.

Yeah, I remember that book. It was, "Fit for Life" by Harvey and Marilyn Diamond. I believe they recommended nothing but fruit for breakfast. And, if I'm not mistaken, I believe he said we are not meant to eat meat because our teeth are not designed for tearing flesh. Our teeth are flat for grinding grains etc.. Well, that's just from memory.

The problem is: I don't think they had any special qualifications. What were they? I don't think they were doctors or nutritionists. And I think the book was geared toward weight loss. I have learned not to waste time with those types of books anymore. I agree, for sure, that not all books pan out. Especially those that seem more interested in marketing products than anything else. Many books today are nothing more than marketing vehicles for a long line of products.

I've rambled on enough, VPL. Again I will wish you to live long and prosper.

Thanks for the good post and I wish you the same.

[Villages PL]

What I am getting from the ongoing discussion is a good example of life being shades of grey and not black and white, at least that is what it feels like. From the languaging it feels that VPL believes that X & Y can't help but lead to Z, while Pooh's languaging is making room for other possibilities.

If you're going to characterize me as being one way or another, please give me a concrete example. What is the X & Y that leads to Z?

From my experience, the human body/mind is so complex that I believe it is impossible be sure of how a body will respond to a particular diet. Generally speaking, we know that veggies are good for us, but I'm sure there are many people who are healthy on a non veggie diet, or at least I wouldn't want to say that there was no one who could be healthy on a non veggie diet.

Are you characterizing me or implying that I would say that no one can be healthy on a non veggie diet? Did I ever say that? As a matter of fact, I said before I became a vegan I was just as healthy as I am now. Not only did you get it wrong but you seem to be wandering off the topic of "artificial sweeteners".

I have to say that VPL your info although not new, made me look again at our menus and to be more conscious about including more salads. But I find that it isn't useful or calming for me to be thinking about my food choices so much. Food combining has always worked best for me and although I have adopted a gluten free diet and practically eliminated our use of sugar, I find that I am not as occupied with the choices now as when I tried to maintain a stricter more vegetarian style diet. It allows for living more in the grey and feeling more balanced.

I'm glad you are including more salads. That's great! But the topic....aren't you totally off topic?

[TOTV Team]

Thread closed - off topic.