Note that the authors compared blood erythritol level, not _intake_. Erythritol is also a metabolite, which is produced by the pentose phosphate pathway, and has been associated with metabolic dysfunction before.
Verbatim response to that tweet, from a highly qualified friend with relevant scientific expertise:
"idk that critique is pretty dismissive of the actual experimental evidence that they generated in the study… consuming an erythritol sweetened beverage raises the erythritol level in the blood to a level that clearly causes an effect on platelets, and coincides with the difference between the measured levels in the observational study… seems pretty convincing to me".
Good point. This paper gets more hype then is appropriate. First it looked at a group of already very sick people:
> Over 40% had already had a heart attack. Over 15% were in heart failure. Over 25% had type 2 diabetes. Over 70% had hypertension. And over 70% had coronary artery disease! [1]
This is important because:
> people with this metabolic profile (Syndrome X) have been shown to have an overactive PPP & likely produce more erythritol (PMID: 20711518) Therefore, it is highly likely that this paper is simply a case of reverse causality. [1]
This gets underscored through:
> the authors’ finding that erythritol levels remain well above the cohort ranges for at least a day after consumption, suggests that none of the cohort patients were consuming erythritol in their diets [2]
Here's a study from 2017 showing that adiposity (basically having a gut and/or being overweight as far as I understand) correlates to elevated levels of Erythritol in the bloodstream. n=264 and the test subjects are all college freshmen so presumably in much better overall health than the subjects of the study that's been getting hyped in the news, so definitely looking like reverse causality here: https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1620079114
Edit: From the paper -
"Erythritol was shown to be synthesized endogenously from glucose via the pentose-phosphate pathway (PPP) in stable isotope-assisted ex vivo blood incubation experiments and through in vivo conversion of erythritol to erythronate in stable isotope-assisted dried blood spot experiments. Therefore, endogenous production of
erythritol from glucose may contribute to the association between erythritol and obesity observed in young adults."
> Artificial Sweeteners and Heart Attacks: fact or fiction?
The nutrition world was set on fire last week when it was reported that erythritol — a popular sweetener used in protein bars and shakes — was linked to stroke and heart attack. There was just one little problem.
The study didn’t even test erythritol consumption, so the conclusion made by many in the media (that erythritol causes heart attacks) was very misleading (at best) and a dramatic false alarm (at worst).
Here's what you need to know: the researchers examined erythritol levels in the blood. Unlike other substances that only show up in your body if you eat it in your diet, erythritol is naturally produced by your body. And, it increases specifically during stress or body dysfunction. So if you have elevated levels of erythritol, it doesn't necessarily mean you've been having a lot of the sweetener; it could be that you're sick.
And that's what makes this study so problematic. The subjects in this study were not healthy. For example, more than 70 percent had coronary artery disease and hypertension. Which bring up an important question: did the consumption of erythritol cause the high levels in the blood, or was it because the subjects very sick and naturally producing more in their bodies? We don’t know because the study didn’t test those variables.
To be clear, other studies suggest supplementing with erythritol can led to positive health outcomes. If you’re worried about erythritol, it’s pretty easy to avoid. Simply check the ingredient list. Our take: we need more research focusing on healthy individuals while controlling for erythritol consumption to see if there is an association with disease. But, at this point, it's early to panic based on the findings of the study.
However, the paper does offer a compelling causal mechanism. Also, it appears they performed follow-up pilot studies on the effects of erythritol consumption—as opposed to its simple presence in the blood. The following quote from the article is repeated in the linked Science commentary:
"The present studies suggest that following ingestion of an artificially sweetened food harboring typical levels of erythritol as artificial sweetener, plasma levels of erythritol remain elevated for many days, well above the thresholds necessary to enhance stimulus-dependent platelet reactivity, even among healthy volunteers."
I agree with Derek Lowe. I'll be avoiding erythritol until subsequent studies prove that it's safe.
This elevated level for many days, actually suggests it's not an intake problem:
> Witkowski et al. note that the vast majority of their study participants were enrolled prior to erythritol becoming a common sweetener and food additive. This, combined with the authors’ finding that erythritol levels remain well above the cohort ranges for at least a day after consumption, suggests that none of the cohort patients were consuming erythritol in their diets, and that the levels measured in fasting plasma samples were instead the result of endogenous production
It also needs to be compared with the known negative effects of foods saturated in high fructose corn syrup.
I think it's becoming more popular in foods lately b/c of its relative lack of aftertaste but it does cause gastric distress in larger amounts and a healthy gut biome is linked to a bunch of other benefits.
There should always be concern for long term black swan style effects esp for the new hotness but by definition these unknown unknowns can never be fully eliminated.
I often see this being used as an excuse to say that because we produce it, it isn't bad for you. Thing is that we produce it in tiny tiny amounts... then we take a spoonful of 'monk fruit' and add it to our coffee. There's nothing 'natural' about that.
> If you’re worried about erythritol, it’s pretty easy to avoid.
Look at the first item on the list, it is a bag of erythritol, packaged to be 'monk fruit'.
Almost every single 'monk fruit' product out there is a bag of erythritol. Look at the shelf in your local grocery store. Eventually, people just give up and buy the bag since they have been told 'sugar' is bad.
> I often see this being used as an excuse to say that because we produce it, it isn't bad for you. Thing is that we produce it in tiny tiny amount
There is a reason we say this, if we produce it naturally our body has mechanisms to metabolize the item. For example acetone isn't very toxic because our body produces it naturally and knows how to deal with it.
(Note I am not disagreeing with you regarding amounts, just pointing out it's not such a foolish thing to say.)
The reason monk fruit and erythritol are mixed is to make the overall sweetness per volume 1:1 with sugar. Since erythritol is less sweet than sugar and monk fruit is much sweeter, you naturally get more erythritol than you do monk fruit.
Erythritol is cheaper than Stevia or Monk Fruit so they've taken to putting a tiny amount of the natural sweetener and a ton of erythritol in there. You really have to look for the pure stuff and order it specifically.
Just some anecdata: I have followed a disciplined keto diet for two-and-a-half years. I eat close to no carbs (apart from fiber). I do, however, like sweet stuff, so I use artificial sweeteners. Lots of them, every day. A mix of stevia, aspartame, sugar alcohols like erythritol, and so on.
I have never had an issue with them (that I am able to notice, of course, not saying they can't have some hidden harmful effects). For those saying that they are a slippery slide to eating more real sugar, I don't think so. At this point I recoil at eating anything with real sugar. It is overwhelmingly sweet, it almost burns in the mouth, and later I get bloated and retain water. I believe this is one of the criticisms of artificial sweeteners - that it lowers your ability to clear blood sugar, since you're just not used to having to produce a lot of insulin at one time. Well I don't actually want to eat a lot of sugar ever, so I'm okay with that.
I'm almost certain that artificial sweeteners have some bad effects somehow, but the bad effects of sugar are plentiful and obvious, so for now the trade-off makes sense, to me.
I'm on my 1888th day after I changed my way of eating, and I hate when this happens to me, I mean, losing the ketosis because something I ate had too much sugar. It happens in some asian restaurants where they cook salmon with sugar and they don't tell you, in some places they add sugar to most japanese salads / wakame. I get bloated and retain water, I get out of focus easily, and I'm tired for the most part of the day. One day a friend of mine thought he had vodka (which does not kick you out of ketosis) instead he gave me some transparent licor, very sweet. I had the most profound high on sugar of my life, with just one shot, I had a high rush of feelings and pleasure, increased heart rate, I wanted to go out and party. I had nightmares that night, in the dreams I needed to run or escape. It took me 72h to fully recover. That said, I've written the most creative pieces of code, mostly backends in functional programming while on ketosis
Fellow keto-er here. There is definitely some hidden ultra sugar in some of those restaurant sauces. I've had a similar experience with takeout Chinese that was "just" chicken & vegetables. Two bites and I felt myself catapult out of ketosis, including the sugar rush you describe and even heart palpitations.
Another thing is that some artificial sweeteners instantly kick me out, too. Worse than sugar. I forget which one it is but I grabbed a "sugar-free" energy drink one time. I spit out the very first sip but still got kicked out of ketosis including the heat and sugar rush, that's how strong it was.
That said, stevia and monk fruit are totally fine for me. No effect whatsoever. I slightly prefer the taste of monk fruit.
I think fruit is seriously overrated from a health perspective. The main benefit of fruit comes when comparing it to candy, white bread, and desserts. Fruit usually has a bit more fiber. Many modern fruits still have a ton of sugar, and it's absolutely possible to give yourself diabetes just eating too much fruit.
Vegetables are packed with nutrients and fiber, without all the sugars that fruit brings.
I tend to think sugar and flour belongs at the top of a pyramid, fruit in the middle, and veggies is the base. However cutting out fruit altogether probably won't hurt at all.
When I cut up an apple or wash some strawberries for my son, I eat a slice or two or maybe a strawberry. Blueberries work well, etc. It's just a choice to balance your diet a different way (I am not nearly as strict as OP). There's a lot of fibre in fruit, you can make it work, but most people don't realize how much sugar is in fruit and it isn't good for you if you are managing type-2 diabetes, or whatever.
Everybody eats wrong until diabetes, treatment resistant epilepsy, mental disease(bipolar, schizophrenia), some type of insulin resistance, overweight, etc (only these come at the top of my head) punches you in the mouth.
Then you have to eat correct. Which is low carb, high fat, low-to-medium protein.
And that is keto diet.
> How is it supposed to improve your health/life?
Lowering carb intake improves your health. While fruits "feel" good, it's mostly just sweets/carbs/fructose.
Anecdotally, this may be because you've decreased your intake and retention of B vitamins, which are water-soluble and essential in metabolizing carbs. Since you retain less water on keto, you have less B vitamins available to digest carbs (and you don't need them, because you're not eating carbs). A lot of people who eat keto feel bloated whenever they eat carbs, to the point that even if they want to quit keto they struggle to do it because carbs make them feel awful. I ate keto for about a year and stopped a couple months ago and experienced this.
So to anyone eating keto who may want to stop but feels awful when eating carbs, supplement your B-vitamins for a month or so, particularly B1/thiamine.
> I'm almost certain that artificial sweeteners have some bad effects somehow, but the bad effects of sugar are plentiful and obvious, so for now the trade-off makes sense, to me.
Unknown bad effects are better than known bad effects? Not sure if thats sound logic.
> At this point I recoil at eating anything with real sugar.
It’s amazing what drinking regular coke is like after being off sugar for awhile. I swear the mouth-feel of drinking the syrup they make it with is there.
It's hard to give up the black oil, er, soda. I don't really like plain water. I can't take anything with most artificial sweeteners, they are migraine triggers for me. I bought a SodaStream, a 10 lb. bottle of CO2 and a few BiB syrup cases of Barq's Root Beer and have been lowering the concentration of syrup the past few months. I'm down to 1/4 the normal concentration of syrup. Eventually, I should be acclimated to the taste of fizzy water by itself... still not much of a fan.
> It’s amazing what drinking regular coke is like after being off sugar for awhile.
It's exquisite. I drink one every few months when we go out to a restaurant. Or a Dr Pepper, another favorite of mine. If you drink them every day, they're pretty boring. But once in a while, they're fantastic.
How many net & total grams of carbs a day are we talking here?
> I do, however, like sweet stuff, so I use artificial sweeteners. Lots of them, every day. A mix of stevia, aspartame, sugar alcohols like erythritol, and so on.
Another point of keto is to also remove the carb/sweets addiction over time(I know it's hard, am addicted/recovering myself).
Total grams doesn't matter. The point is the glycemic impact. Some people are very sensitive to carbs and can't eat a banana without throwing off ketosis, and others can have upwards of 30g of net carbs a day and still stay in ketosis. My goal is 20g or less, and my ketones still stay in the 1.5-2.0 range unless I overdo protein instead of fat.
For most people, the starting point is around 15g net carbs a day. If you're serious about keto (and staying healthy while doing so) you'll want a ketone testing mechanism as well as guidance from your doctor about adjusting medications since ketosis mimics a fasting state for a bunch of your metabolic processes.
I thought this was a nice analysis of the study: https://peterattiamd.com/more-hype-than-substance-erythritol.... Since our bodies produce erythritol as part of the pentose phosphate pathway (which is activated heavily by many of the same factors which increase the risk of heart disease), it's possible that high circulating levels in our blood are just a marker/signal of other factors.
Well that leaves aspartame and stevia as the cleanest sweeteners, at least using human data. Thaumatin is another one that should be benign (it’s a large protein, unlike the others), but largely untested.
The worst offending 'fake' Stevia products are the ones packed with maltodextrin. The large bags sold for baking are the ones you always need to check.
Xylitol is not zero calorie, but its metabolism is more like glucose than fructose, and it's beneficial to oral health, both against tooth decay and throat infections. It also has less risk of GI upset than other sugar alcohols. Its main drawback is that it kills dogs.
It not only kills dogs, it only takes a small amount to do so.
I keep some in the house double bagged to use in a neti pot when I’m sick (it’s also a good decongestant!), but there’s no way I’d willingly buy any food with it. It’s just too risky.
> Reviews have found no association between aspartame and cancer.[5][8][10][27][28] This position is supported by multiple regulatory agencies like the FDA[29] and EFSA as well as scientific bodies such as the National Cancer Institute.[30] The EFSA, FDA, and US National Cancer Institute state that aspartame is safe for human consumption.[7][31]
It seems like "newish" is a downside, if you want to avoid dangerous things. How many sweeteners enjoyed positive coverage for a decade or two before we found out they were bad for you?
100%. Allulose is the closest thing to sugar. It's also the only one that works well in simple syrup because it doesn't crystalize in storage and keeps the taste consistent for cocktails.
The only problem is its pretty expensive and you have to buy it online since it's realitive new.
Hopefully production ramps up over the next few years.
I keep seeing things indicating this is good for your teeth (e.g. chewing gum with xylitol) but can't tell if it is astro-turfing or not (on my list of things to research when I retire).
Great sweetener, maybe my only complaint is ... slight minty taste, but be damn careful with it if you or anybody you know has a dog. Even very small quantities are lethal to them.
(German) wikipedia mentions it is a relatively expensive sugar replacement. Maybe that's why it is less popular. Interesting is that it is pretty common in multiple plants (it sounds more natural at least)
Majority of monk fruit sold online & in stores is actually mixed with Erythritol anyway.
Top 5 hits on Amazon for "monk fruit sweetener" all have Erythritol. Some mention it in the product name, some later on in description, etc. Have to read very carefully.
Recently I was considering buying some erythritol. Never tried it, but I read it was a good and "healthy" sugar substitute.
Now I'm inclined to think that most substitutes won't do me any good. I suppose I'll stick to limiting my sugar and processed carbs intake as much as possible.
My take on fake sugar is, if you use it for weight loss, you've messed up. You'll still crave sugary stuff, and when you don't have fake sugar handy, you'll eat the real thing (in restaurants, etc.). On the other hand, if you don't eat sugar much, you quickly find that apples, oranges and even carrots are actually super sweet, but you it's hard to eat enough of those to gain weight.
The best rule of thumb for weight loss I've found out is: Never drink calories.
It's really easy to drink hundreds and hundreds of calories with calorie-heavy drinks. It's a lot harder to do the same by eating, fiber in the food tells your body to stop pretty fast.
I have a sweet tooth. Apparently, genetically. About a year ago I said enough is enough to my excess weight gained during the first pandemic lockdowns. Mind you, I eat generally well but my caloric intake had been pretty high and I was eating too many sugary things.
After trying a few different things, I decided it was time to bring out the big guns so I started calorie counting. Sugar had to go due to its calorie density and how much I would keep craving it afterwards.
My sweet cravings didn't go away. I started with fruit but that wouldn't quite hit the spot, at least not always.
Enter zero calorie sweeteners.
I'd add a bit of them to less sugary fruits (berries, etc) at first. I started adding it to a few other things when I wanted something sweet. It worked great.
It's true that when it wasn't available I would get something with actual sugar, but that would be maybe 5-10% of the time, so I had cut 90-95% of the calories I used to consume from sugar. That's a win.
In time I started weaning it all off. Not completely but I reduced it to a minimum. I still have a zero ginger beer every now and then, and still add a bit of fake sugar to one thing or another. I also consume chewing gums and mints with sugar alcohols.
They have been instrumental in my weight loss journey and now I'm at about 14% body fat. I still want to lose a little to see if it will improve my climbing performance but I'm quite satisfied. I have reintroduced small amounts of sugary foods to my diet, at this point with no abnormal cravings.
Yes, carrots, oranges, beetroots, milk, even berries can be very sweet after you wean off the excess sugar and fake sugars. They can be enough most days. Other days I'll use whatever sweet thing I have at hand, in moderation, in order to beat the craving.
So my take on fake sugar is, if you use it for weight loss, use it conscientiously and in a way that will help you get off sugar first, but also with a plan to slowly get off them as well. They can be an excellent tool if used well.
My experience has been largely the same. I started eating more fruits, cut off sugary drinks completely, and had an impressive improvement in LDL cholesterol.
I have a rule. I try to stay away from eating a lot of stuff very few other people eat a lot of. I don't want to be a guinea pig.
I do experiment on myself but only after I can reasonably assume whatever I am consuming is relatively safe, and this means there is sizeable enough population that eats it at same or larger quantities that I plan to ingest.
I use table sugar as sweetener. It really isn't that bad for you. A healthy person should be able to eat sweet dessert from time to time with no ill effects (but not every day and not in large quantities). We have pretty good idea of risks of consuming table sugar vs other sweeteners.
I do intermittent keto to build and maintain metabolic flexibility. This means there are longs spans of time with very few carbs and definitely no sweetened stuff which are more than enough to wipe out occasional taste of reasonable amount of sugar.
I find it is easier and better to just cut out desserts and sweetened drinks and learn to eat proper things for your diet. This whole idea of pretending you are not really on keto and doing keto pizzas, keto breads, keto sweet drinks, keto cheesecakes and so on only makes it feel like you are forcing yourself to eat something that is less tasty than the original. There really is no substitute for real bread, pizza or cheesecake. Doing keto intermittently (say 2 months of keto, 2 weeks off keto) means you can still eat what you want, just not all the time. And it is apparently healthier option because you exercise your metabolism in various ways rather than be permanently on keto.
One positive information for me here is that I may have a new tool to battle fruit flies which are VERY attracted to organic fertilizers I use to grow in-house veggies.
A bowl of wine with one drop of dish detergent has always cleared my house of fruit flies promptly. Gnats (which live in the soil near plants I think?) seem impossible to get rid of short of tossing out all the house plants.
Wine works well, especially with added fruit peels, but I drink alcohol rarely and most of the wine would spoil. I've seen small bottles of wine in Sweden but not where I live - just these 700-750ml ones. I also drink organic with no added sulfites and these appear to spoil quicker even in the fridge.
Gnats and aphids' larvae and eggs appear to be a delicacy for bees. Whenever I put plant pots on a sunny balcony during early spring daytime, I have dozens of bees tinkering in the soil. They also very efficiently clean up the soil and help aerate the roots[1]. Bees are the awesomest living species I know!
I had an issue with fungus gnats in a couple house plants. To eliminate them, water the plants from the bottom and cover as much of the open top of the pot as you can in flypaper (yes, this can leave a sticky mess behind).
They need both moisture and oxygen to reproduce, which means they only live in a damp top layer of soil. So leaving the top layer of soil dry prevents them from reproducing. And since fungus gnats are dumb and slow they fly right into the flypaper, removing themselves from the gene pool.
You can also replace the top couple centimeters of soil. You'll still want to keep the soil as dry as possible for a week so any remaining gnats stop laying eggs.
Fungus gnats look like fruit flies, but aren't interested in vinegar or other fruit fly traps. They can also be distinguished by their catlike ability to spring back from a slap with "excuse me, I was flying here, do you mind?" insouciance.
I've had success suppressing them with frequent sprays of neem oil, direct to the soil of the pots. Daily for a week or two to break the life cycle and then weekly or more often to keep the inevitable survivors knocked back and feeling unwelcome.
They're also suckers for a candle left lit in a darkened room.
Readit News
Check out this thread: https://twitter.com/Dr__Guess/status/1630548194907021313
"idk that critique is pretty dismissive of the actual experimental evidence that they generated in the study… consuming an erythritol sweetened beverage raises the erythritol level in the blood to a level that clearly causes an effect on platelets, and coincides with the difference between the measured levels in the observational study… seems pretty convincing to me".
> Over 40% had already had a heart attack. Over 15% were in heart failure. Over 25% had type 2 diabetes. Over 70% had hypertension. And over 70% had coronary artery disease! [1]
This is important because:
> people with this metabolic profile (Syndrome X) have been shown to have an overactive PPP & likely produce more erythritol (PMID: 20711518) Therefore, it is highly likely that this paper is simply a case of reverse causality. [1]
This gets underscored through:
> the authors’ finding that erythritol levels remain well above the cohort ranges for at least a day after consumption, suggests that none of the cohort patients were consuming erythritol in their diets [2]
[1] https://www.instagram.com/p/CpQspxwgqgT/ [2] https://peterattiamd.com/more-hype-than-substance-erythritol...
Edit: From the paper -
"Erythritol was shown to be synthesized endogenously from glucose via the pentose-phosphate pathway (PPP) in stable isotope-assisted ex vivo blood incubation experiments and through in vivo conversion of erythritol to erythronate in stable isotope-assisted dried blood spot experiments. Therefore, endogenous production of erythritol from glucose may contribute to the association between erythritol and obesity observed in young adults."
> Artificial Sweeteners and Heart Attacks: fact or fiction?
The nutrition world was set on fire last week when it was reported that erythritol — a popular sweetener used in protein bars and shakes — was linked to stroke and heart attack. There was just one little problem.
The study didn’t even test erythritol consumption, so the conclusion made by many in the media (that erythritol causes heart attacks) was very misleading (at best) and a dramatic false alarm (at worst).
Here's what you need to know: the researchers examined erythritol levels in the blood. Unlike other substances that only show up in your body if you eat it in your diet, erythritol is naturally produced by your body. And, it increases specifically during stress or body dysfunction. So if you have elevated levels of erythritol, it doesn't necessarily mean you've been having a lot of the sweetener; it could be that you're sick.
And that's what makes this study so problematic. The subjects in this study were not healthy. For example, more than 70 percent had coronary artery disease and hypertension. Which bring up an important question: did the consumption of erythritol cause the high levels in the blood, or was it because the subjects very sick and naturally producing more in their bodies? We don’t know because the study didn’t test those variables.
To be clear, other studies suggest supplementing with erythritol can led to positive health outcomes. If you’re worried about erythritol, it’s pretty easy to avoid. Simply check the ingredient list. Our take: we need more research focusing on healthy individuals while controlling for erythritol consumption to see if there is an association with disease. But, at this point, it's early to panic based on the findings of the study.
"The present studies suggest that following ingestion of an artificially sweetened food harboring typical levels of erythritol as artificial sweetener, plasma levels of erythritol remain elevated for many days, well above the thresholds necessary to enhance stimulus-dependent platelet reactivity, even among healthy volunteers."
I agree with Derek Lowe. I'll be avoiding erythritol until subsequent studies prove that it's safe.
> Witkowski et al. note that the vast majority of their study participants were enrolled prior to erythritol becoming a common sweetener and food additive. This, combined with the authors’ finding that erythritol levels remain well above the cohort ranges for at least a day after consumption, suggests that none of the cohort patients were consuming erythritol in their diets, and that the levels measured in fasting plasma samples were instead the result of endogenous production
[1] https://peterattiamd.com/more-hype-than-substance-erythritol...
I think it's becoming more popular in foods lately b/c of its relative lack of aftertaste but it does cause gastric distress in larger amounts and a healthy gut biome is linked to a bunch of other benefits.
There should always be concern for long term black swan style effects esp for the new hotness but by definition these unknown unknowns can never be fully eliminated.
Is there a list of sicknesses that elevate erythritol levels naturally.
coronary artery disease and hypertension - these are the two main ones?
I often see this being used as an excuse to say that because we produce it, it isn't bad for you. Thing is that we produce it in tiny tiny amounts... then we take a spoonful of 'monk fruit' and add it to our coffee. There's nothing 'natural' about that.
> If you’re worried about erythritol, it’s pretty easy to avoid.
Not really. Just a random google...
"MONK FRUIT IN THE RAW"
https://www.amazon.com/Natural-Sweetener-Erythritol-Sugar-Fr...
Look at the first item on the list, it is a bag of erythritol, packaged to be 'monk fruit'.
Almost every single 'monk fruit' product out there is a bag of erythritol. Look at the shelf in your local grocery store. Eventually, people just give up and buy the bag since they have been told 'sugar' is bad.
That's the real tragedy here.
There is a reason we say this, if we produce it naturally our body has mechanisms to metabolize the item. For example acetone isn't very toxic because our body produces it naturally and knows how to deal with it.
(Note I am not disagreeing with you regarding amounts, just pointing out it's not such a foolish thing to say.)
I have never had an issue with them (that I am able to notice, of course, not saying they can't have some hidden harmful effects). For those saying that they are a slippery slide to eating more real sugar, I don't think so. At this point I recoil at eating anything with real sugar. It is overwhelmingly sweet, it almost burns in the mouth, and later I get bloated and retain water. I believe this is one of the criticisms of artificial sweeteners - that it lowers your ability to clear blood sugar, since you're just not used to having to produce a lot of insulin at one time. Well I don't actually want to eat a lot of sugar ever, so I'm okay with that.
I'm almost certain that artificial sweeteners have some bad effects somehow, but the bad effects of sugar are plentiful and obvious, so for now the trade-off makes sense, to me.
Another thing is that some artificial sweeteners instantly kick me out, too. Worse than sugar. I forget which one it is but I grabbed a "sugar-free" energy drink one time. I spit out the very first sip but still got kicked out of ketosis including the heat and sugar rush, that's how strong it was.
That said, stevia and monk fruit are totally fine for me. No effect whatsoever. I slightly prefer the taste of monk fruit.
Vegetables are packed with nutrients and fiber, without all the sugars that fruit brings.
I tend to think sugar and flour belongs at the top of a pyramid, fruit in the middle, and veggies is the base. However cutting out fruit altogether probably won't hurt at all.
Being fat is a lot more deadly than not eating fruits.
b. Many fruits are 'keto friendly', like blueberries, strawberries, actually mostly berries :), but also something like water melon, in moderation.
c. A lot of modern fruit is engineered to be high in sugar and water and low in nutrients, so they might not even be so healthy as you think.
d. I can actually eat sweet fruit (although I don't often want to). I was talking more about sugar-crammed stuff like cake and soft drinks.
Everybody eats wrong until diabetes, treatment resistant epilepsy, mental disease(bipolar, schizophrenia), some type of insulin resistance, overweight, etc (only these come at the top of my head) punches you in the mouth.
Then you have to eat correct. Which is low carb, high fat, low-to-medium protein.
And that is keto diet.
> How is it supposed to improve your health/life?
Lowering carb intake improves your health. While fruits "feel" good, it's mostly just sweets/carbs/fructose.
Anecdotally, this may be because you've decreased your intake and retention of B vitamins, which are water-soluble and essential in metabolizing carbs. Since you retain less water on keto, you have less B vitamins available to digest carbs (and you don't need them, because you're not eating carbs). A lot of people who eat keto feel bloated whenever they eat carbs, to the point that even if they want to quit keto they struggle to do it because carbs make them feel awful. I ate keto for about a year and stopped a couple months ago and experienced this.
So to anyone eating keto who may want to stop but feels awful when eating carbs, supplement your B-vitamins for a month or so, particularly B1/thiamine.
Edit: Aha, from a bit of googling it looks like they are required cofactors for various enzymes.
Unknown bad effects are better than known bad effects? Not sure if thats sound logic.
It’s amazing what drinking regular coke is like after being off sugar for awhile. I swear the mouth-feel of drinking the syrup they make it with is there.
It's exquisite. I drink one every few months when we go out to a restaurant. Or a Dr Pepper, another favorite of mine. If you drink them every day, they're pretty boring. But once in a while, they're fantastic.
How many net & total grams of carbs a day are we talking here?
> I do, however, like sweet stuff, so I use artificial sweeteners. Lots of them, every day. A mix of stevia, aspartame, sugar alcohols like erythritol, and so on.
Another point of keto is to also remove the carb/sweets addiction over time(I know it's hard, am addicted/recovering myself).
Total grams doesn't matter. The point is the glycemic impact. Some people are very sensitive to carbs and can't eat a banana without throwing off ketosis, and others can have upwards of 30g of net carbs a day and still stay in ketosis. My goal is 20g or less, and my ketones still stay in the 1.5-2.0 range unless I overdo protein instead of fat.
For most people, the starting point is around 15g net carbs a day. If you're serious about keto (and staying healthy while doing so) you'll want a ketone testing mechanism as well as guidance from your doctor about adjusting medications since ketosis mimics a fasting state for a bunch of your metabolic processes.
I keep some in the house double bagged to use in a neti pot when I’m sick (it’s also a good decongestant!), but there’s no way I’d willingly buy any food with it. It’s just too risky.
I don't own a dog, but my God I hope they have warning labels on it!
Legit question, I stopped following these developments a few years ago and things were still pretty much in the air then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame#Cancer
Plenty of citations there if you need to deep dive any further.
The only problem is its pretty expensive and you have to buy it online since it's realitive new.
Hopefully production ramps up over the next few years.
Deleted Comment
more profound cooling effect than erythritol (which has some)
more expensive
really, really does not caramelize and cooks very differently
gastrointestinal effects
causes an insulin spike
Top 5 hits on Amazon for "monk fruit sweetener" all have Erythritol. Some mention it in the product name, some later on in description, etc. Have to read very carefully.
Now I'm inclined to think that most substitutes won't do me any good. I suppose I'll stick to limiting my sugar and processed carbs intake as much as possible.
It's really easy to drink hundreds and hundreds of calories with calorie-heavy drinks. It's a lot harder to do the same by eating, fiber in the food tells your body to stop pretty fast.
After trying a few different things, I decided it was time to bring out the big guns so I started calorie counting. Sugar had to go due to its calorie density and how much I would keep craving it afterwards.
My sweet cravings didn't go away. I started with fruit but that wouldn't quite hit the spot, at least not always.
Enter zero calorie sweeteners.
I'd add a bit of them to less sugary fruits (berries, etc) at first. I started adding it to a few other things when I wanted something sweet. It worked great.
It's true that when it wasn't available I would get something with actual sugar, but that would be maybe 5-10% of the time, so I had cut 90-95% of the calories I used to consume from sugar. That's a win.
In time I started weaning it all off. Not completely but I reduced it to a minimum. I still have a zero ginger beer every now and then, and still add a bit of fake sugar to one thing or another. I also consume chewing gums and mints with sugar alcohols.
They have been instrumental in my weight loss journey and now I'm at about 14% body fat. I still want to lose a little to see if it will improve my climbing performance but I'm quite satisfied. I have reintroduced small amounts of sugary foods to my diet, at this point with no abnormal cravings.
Yes, carrots, oranges, beetroots, milk, even berries can be very sweet after you wean off the excess sugar and fake sugars. They can be enough most days. Other days I'll use whatever sweet thing I have at hand, in moderation, in order to beat the craving.
So my take on fake sugar is, if you use it for weight loss, use it conscientiously and in a way that will help you get off sugar first, but also with a plan to slowly get off them as well. They can be an excellent tool if used well.
I do experiment on myself but only after I can reasonably assume whatever I am consuming is relatively safe, and this means there is sizeable enough population that eats it at same or larger quantities that I plan to ingest.
I use table sugar as sweetener. It really isn't that bad for you. A healthy person should be able to eat sweet dessert from time to time with no ill effects (but not every day and not in large quantities). We have pretty good idea of risks of consuming table sugar vs other sweeteners.
I do intermittent keto to build and maintain metabolic flexibility. This means there are longs spans of time with very few carbs and definitely no sweetened stuff which are more than enough to wipe out occasional taste of reasonable amount of sugar.
I find it is easier and better to just cut out desserts and sweetened drinks and learn to eat proper things for your diet. This whole idea of pretending you are not really on keto and doing keto pizzas, keto breads, keto sweet drinks, keto cheesecakes and so on only makes it feel like you are forcing yourself to eat something that is less tasty than the original. There really is no substitute for real bread, pizza or cheesecake. Doing keto intermittently (say 2 months of keto, 2 weeks off keto) means you can still eat what you want, just not all the time. And it is apparently healthier option because you exercise your metabolism in various ways rather than be permanently on keto.
Gnats and aphids' larvae and eggs appear to be a delicacy for bees. Whenever I put plant pots on a sunny balcony during early spring daytime, I have dozens of bees tinkering in the soil. They also very efficiently clean up the soil and help aerate the roots[1]. Bees are the awesomest living species I know!
[1] https://wojteksychut.com/vid/bees.mp4
They need both moisture and oxygen to reproduce, which means they only live in a damp top layer of soil. So leaving the top layer of soil dry prevents them from reproducing. And since fungus gnats are dumb and slow they fly right into the flypaper, removing themselves from the gene pool.
You can also replace the top couple centimeters of soil. You'll still want to keep the soil as dry as possible for a week so any remaining gnats stop laying eggs.
I've had success suppressing them with frequent sprays of neem oil, direct to the soil of the pots. Daily for a week or two to break the life cycle and then weekly or more often to keep the inevitable survivors knocked back and feeling unwelcome.
They're also suckers for a candle left lit in a darkened room.