I do think that they should have put non-caloric sweeteners down with the "okay" group. There is no physiological reason they cannot be consumed on a paleo diet.
Artificial Sweeteners - Paleo? Yes or No!
I do think that they should have put non-caloric sweeteners down with the "okay" group. There is no physiological reason they cannot be consumed on a paleo diet.
Benson, I'm curious if you have read Stephan Guyenet's recent posts regarding food reward? Do you think there could be some issues with artificial sweeteners in this regard, even though we know they don't cause insulin secretion?Originally Posted by Benson
I'm not familiar with the post you reference. Do you have a link?
Mostly he is talking about decreasing food reward to reduce set point, but it seems plausible that if true it could work in the other direction. Unfortunately he doesn't seem to have everything worked out yet, or he is still holding additional information back.
I can see how, intuitively, you might think that was the case.
But most of the experimental data I have seen show that in humans, consuming artificial sweeteners habitually doesn't do anything to overall food consumption.
But why must it be overall food consumption that gives artificial sweeteners the pass? Obviously, amount of food is a major factor, but I think it has been well established here as well as elsewhere that there can be differential effects of how calories are metabolized as well as where they end up depending on the current state of the person eating the food.
If food reward does indeed have a role to play, then instead of the quantity of food it could be an issue of how of the body responds to increases or decreases in habitual food intake (i.e. defending the set-point) by increasing/decreasing appetite and/or metabolism.
But basically, even though I consume artificial sweeteners, I think it is an interesting direction Stephan is taking the ideas, and I hope he continues to work through it. Obviously he needs to provide additional detail.
Well, look at it this way.
Unless and until we get some real data on the impact of sweetness on food reward and the impact of food reward on consumption, we can safely say that, for all intents and purposes, non-caloric sweeteners are biologically inert and are not going to mess with the favorable hormonal milieu created by a paleo diet.
Sort of the dietary equivalent of sand.
How about the common sense reason that they were not consumed throughout 99.9% of our evolution?
The point of the paleo diet is not to establish dogma based on pseudoscientific work in evolutionary biology. In contrast, it is a set of principles designed to eliminate from the diet foods that commonly cause problems.
In particular, the elimination of dairy and gluten improves well-being and quality of life for many individuals, as low-grade gluten/dairy intolerance is quite common. Gluten is also directly inflammatory, so there is a sound scientific rationale for its elimination. On a similar note, most forms of most grains have relatively high glycemic index, which can be problematic for individuals who have trouble controlling their hunger or who have [pre]diabetes mellitus.
The paleo diet combines these concepts into a single framework, observing that these principles also bear a resemblance to what we suspect would have constituted the diet of "paleo-man". The key, however, is that the key justifications are derived from evidence-based science, not from a pseudoscientific interpretation of evolutionary biology. Given that there is no evidence for inflammatory or otherwise adverse effects stemming from the use of artificial sweeteners, there is not a particularly sound rationale for their exclusion.
Dude - who are you to state what the "point of a paleo diet" is?
"A set principles designed to eliminate from the diet foods that commonly cause problems." Alrighty then.
Is it your position that what I refer to as (my) common sense is pseudoscientific? If so, perhaps I should be flattered. Science is the new religion after all.
1000 'scientific' studies might not observe "inflammatory or otherwise adverse effects" from XYZ, however that does not prove that there are NOT adverse effects from XYZ.
You can't prove a negative.
Reminds me of "discussions" I've had with vegetarian and vegan religious fanatics who will trot out scientific study after to study in attempt to bolster their viewpoints.
I dont need "studies" to form an opinion. Only the realization that humans primarily evolved in periods of food scarcity and ate whatever the hell they could (and didnt waste anything mind you). Hence we were "built" to eat meat. It's pretty simple actually and you don't need 'science' to tell you what to believe.
Had this argument with the cross fit trainer today. Her stance is it causes an insulin release, which shuttles what carbs/fats you have, into your cells making you hungry and craving more sugar. She did bring up a good point that I have noticed. When drinking crystal light, you crave more crystal light. I asked her why diabetics can drink diet soda etc and she said they can't.
I'm so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying.
The purpose of argument, should not be victory, but progress.
I could say the same to you.
Very often, yes. Common sense dictates a lot of things that aren't true. This is, after all, where we get notions like "the ocean is blue because it's a reflection of the sky" or "fat makes you fat".Is it your position that what I refer to as (my) common sense is pseudoscientific?
Yeah, not so much. Science and religion are quite distinct. Science is about creating testable hypotheses, and religion is about faith. The first seeks repeatability, the latter seeks meaning.If so, perhaps I should be flattered. Science is the new religion after all.
Actually, it does show precisely that in the context of medicine.1000 'scientific' studies might not observe "inflammatory or otherwise adverse effects" from XYZ, however that does not prove that there are NOT adverse effects from XYZ.
See, if 100 studies administer substance X to patient groups, and in all of those studies, serum inflammatory cytokines are unchanged, we can safely say that the compound does not alter inflammatory markers under physiological conditions.
Of course, unlike physics or chemistry, medicine is necessarily a statistical science, and so we cannot guarantee that no individual will ever see an increase in inflammatory cytokines due to substance X. What we can say, however, is that the probability of an increase in inflammatory cytokines occurring in a given patient is p, a very small probability (e.g. 0.001%) that can be directly derived from the literature.
Of course, you have about that much of a chance of winning a small lottery, so if you want to base your decisions on such unlikely events, you are not behaving rationally from the start.
You can, depending on your definition of prove. If experiments are conducted and event X never occurs after sufficiently many attempts, we can conclusively say that the probability of the event ever occurring is so low as to be irrelevant. In a modern scientific context, this is considered "proven", even though it is not quite as rigorous as the mathematical definition.You can't prove a negative.
In contrast, there are no such limitations in sciences not founded upon statistics. I can demonstrate quite effectively that you cannot create a heat engine with 100% efficiency.
Well, there actually is some good research on the health benefits of vegetarianism. I personally love me some meat, but particularly contrasted with a standard Western diet, vegetarianism has its benefits. Veganism, on the other hand, is just plain unhealthy.
That's true. You just need studies to be justified in your opinion. When you're discussing testable phenomena, and you ignore research (i.e. testing) on said phenomena, only a fool would take you seriously.I dont need "studies" to form an opinion.
This is proof, albeit weakly, that we are able to digest meat. That argument in no way proves that meat consumption intrinsically healthy. Nor does it prove that vegetarianism is unhealthy.Only the realization that humans primarily evolved in periods of food scarcity and ate whatever the hell they could (and didnt waste anything mind you). Hence we were "built" to eat meat. It's pretty simple actually and you don't need 'science' to tell you what to believe.
What's odd about this bit here is that, if you look at the data, both vegetarianism and meat eating -- providing it's raw meat, and not processed meat -- are quite healthy. I prefer to eat the flesh of dead animals because it's delicious, but there's nothing fundamentally wrong with vegetarianism.
Unless you are out clubbing your meat on the African Savannah and consuming it raw, just about anything you are eating today falls into that category...cows, pigs, and chickens, even free-ranged and grass-fed, are all modern genetic creations of the last ~5k years...same goes for the fruits, vegetables and tubers you might find available to you today...
If you want to avoid non-caloric sweeteners simply because doing so slakes your dogma (the de Vany position), that is certainly your prerogative.
But you should know that there is no physiological reason to justify your position.
Did you ask her why, if this is the case, a can of diet cola doesn't immediately bring you to your knees in a hypoglycemic crisis?
They certainly can.
Correlating two things like a flavored drink and the desire for more flavored drink doesn't point to either of her conclusions.
A simple glucose test can settle this argument very quickly. Moreso, this falls into the 'all insulin is bad' argument, which I disagree with. Especially when exercising.
If she is right, diet soda and crystal light are my new preworkout drinks, bitches.
The thought that tasting sweet makes you release insulin has been disproven. Not to mention the insulin response to protein.
Last edited by Jakeshorts; July 19th, 2011 at 02:05 PM.
The arbitrary reason to create a very good diet shouldn't over rule things we know to be true by science. The paleo diet's ethos was based off of the hypothesis that we can't handle things of modern design correctly. When science contradicts this on an individual basis, it's the definition of ignorance to ignore the evidence based on 'morals'. This is more of a religious quality than anything else. Science changes it's hypothesis all the time based on new objective evidence.
Any chance you can link me to those studies?
I'm so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying.
The purpose of argument, should not be victory, but progress.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks