Hi all. I think I have a simple question here (maybe?). If I understand it correctly, insulin is produced in response to high blood glucose resulting in conversion/storage to fat. If artificial sweeteners signal the "appearance" of high glucose, thus causing an insulin spike, the net result should be lowered blood glucose, right? So one could determine if they are susceptive to such spikes by monitoring whether blood glucose decreased after ingesting artificial sweeteners?

I dont think so. As a diabetic I would drink the whatever with the artifical sweetner in it after testing my blood sugar. Then 2 hrs later test again. And not eat anything else. It should stay the same or even go down after a 2 hr stretch w/out food. If it is up then absolutely I would call the AS the culprit. The idea is to keep insulin FROM being activated as much as possible.Then your body uses the fuel as fuel if you are eating correctly. IE Low-Carb
IMHO
Karen

Actually I think the original poster is right. If an artificial sweetener, without maltodextrin, dextrose, or sugar alcohols, is causing an insulin response, then blood sugar should be lower, and it should be lower fairly quickly, within a few minutes of finishing the drink, I would think.

(05-28-2009 06:27 PM)Low Carb Cheater Wrote:  .....If artificial sweeteners signal the "appearance" of high glucose, thus causing an insulin spike, the net result should be lowered blood glucose, right?.....

..........except that the pancreas responds with insulin for two purposes:

1) to store excess blood glucose
2) to respond to anaerobic exertion

When storing excess blood glucose, the beta cells respond to blood glucose directly .....or to an artificial sweetener mimicking glucose.
When responding to anaerobic exertion, pancreas nerves monitor blood endorphin ........or an ingested peptide mimicking endorphin .......and direct beta cells to release insulin.

I think the dual purpose of insulin release explains most of the noted ambiguity in effect. You aren't just dealing with a blood sugar system. The pancreas causing glucose storage in the absence of glucose can't be good. But the pancreas causing even more glucose storage in the absence of anaerobic exertion could be worse.

I think it's the biggest reason why non-low carbers can use exertion to curb the effects of metabolic syndrome. Exertion renders appropriate the excess insulin from both systems.

The problem? It's a bandaid. The body requires healthy amounts of exertion. But the body also requires a low-carb gluten-free diet.

The bottom line is to check your own blood sugar response and see how it impacts YOU. Some people it has no effect and others see their BS go statistically up or down based on the insulin response they may be experiencing.

(05-28-2009 08:19 PM)Jimmy Moore Wrote:  The bottom line is to check your own blood sugar response and see how it impacts YOU. Some people it has no effect and others see their BS go statistically up or down based on the insulin response they may be experiencing.

This is actually my question since I plan to "play" with a blood glucose meter in the very near future to provide me with a little more info as to how my body responds to certain things.

I should have been more specific as to the type of AS because I'm talking Splenda or such with negligible or no carb "binders". If there is a phantom affect where the body "thinks" it is getting glucose and this causes an insulin spike, the result should be lowering of glucose.

As you can perhaps tell, I'm really struggling to sort a few things out without over thinking either. I know what has worked but it's not working any more and I'm not even close to what should be a doable goal for me.

Definitely avoid the maltodextrin and you shouldn't see much of a spike or dip at all if there is no impact from AS.

The problem is addiction. No, you aren't an addict any more than most westerners.

Trying to maintain blood sugar by ingesting sweets is "fruitless". Sweets, real or artificial, lower blood sugar. They leave you wanting more sweets. So you eat more sweets until your fat cells become insulin resistant .......diabetes and metabolic syndrome.

Cutting back on sugar intake is definitely a good thing. But don't substitute artificial sweeteners. Artificial sweeteners crater your blood sugar and make you crave more sweets.

So you think "I'll just stop eating sweets, and that'll remove the cravings". It's not that simple either. Stop ingesting wheat too.

Wheat protein (from maltodextrin and bread) is an opioid. It too tells the pancreas to release insulin. It lowers blood sugar, and makes you crave sweets.

If you're like most westerners, you're in constant withdrawal. You're kicking the sugar habit 24 hours a day, every day. Totally kick it once, and you'll never have to kick it again. But you have to abstain from wheat and its relatives, barley, rye and oats.

The sweets-free, wheat-free diet makes you hungry when your body needs food, and not when it doesn't. It doesn't just make people lose weight. It puts people's weight where it belongs, and keeps it there.

I'm not a doctor, and I don't speak for anybody but myself. But I've read pretty extensively on this subject. And I'm a living testimonial.

If you try a sweets-free wheat-free diet, you'll be surprised at how much your food buying habits have to change. You have to stop eating almost everything you were eating, and switch to real food.

I have tested my blood sugar before and after AF. It does not change any more that a couple of points and that is the same as if I eat a LC meal, so I think it does not affect me at all. I do not think you can take the word of anyone on how it affects you. It affects some and it does not affect some others. I never had a blood sugar problem at all before going LC. I think if you did then AF are more likely to affect you. I think the only way to really know is to buy a meter and test yourself. That is what I did.

Hi guys,


Thanks for the suggestion you give that's very kind and helpful and by the way i am newbie to these forum and i apologize for my bad english to hope you understand it and by the way i have the same problem too I never had a blood sugar problem at all before going LC. I think if you did then AF are more likely to affect you. I think the only way to really know is to buy a meter and test yourself!!how to hypnotize

I've never been able to find granulated sucralose or aspartame that didn't contain maltodextrin.

(04-13-2010 10:37 AM)thombrogan Wrote:  I've never been able to find granulated sucralose or aspartame that didn't contain maltodextrin.

I use liquid sucralose -- couple of drops a day in my morning coffee. That's it. I did switch b/c who needs the odd 2-3g carbs from the fillers in the packets.

Gosh this thread is a blast from the past. I've learned so much in the intervening almost year.

Monitoring BG's is a mixed bag in the interpretation. One has to make certain assumptions, and short of measuring insulin concurrently, we don't really know what our insulin responses are.

(04-13-2010 11:03 AM)Low Carb Cheater Wrote:  I use liquid sucralose -- couple of drops a day in my morning coffee.

That sounds like the way to do it.

I used to be a diet Coke abuser, so I got the insulin-agonism from caffeine, probably more from the aspartame, and what I've heard were ketone-blunting effects from the citric acid. Betting coffee with sucralose, while not ideal, would be less of a problem.

(04-13-2010 12:14 PM)thombrogan Wrote:  

(04-13-2010 11:03 AM)Low Carb Cheater Wrote:  I use liquid sucralose -- couple of drops a day in my morning coffee.

That sounds like the way to do it.

I used to be a diet Coke abuser, so I got the insulin-agonism from caffeine, probably more from the aspartame, and what I've heard were ketone-blunting effects from the citric acid. Betting coffee with sucralose, while not ideal, would be less of a problem.

My personal "take" on all this is that the whole cephalic response and such are bigger in theory than in actuality. And nobody knows for sure, and the "facts" change. For example, DANDR bans caffeine in induction, The New Atkins reverses this position actually citing a study that it can assist weight loss. ... Stuff like that.

I take a long term approach to all this. I was having two large mugs of coffee with cream and a Splenda packet every morning since I started on this, so when my weight loss stalled out this wasn't something I suspected. But replacing those 2 packs with 2 drops took even trace fillers out of the equation. Honestly, I saw no difference either way, but I have a huge bottle (as drops go) of the liquid stuff so might as well use it!

I don't crave sweets or even choose them on cheats most of the time. I just can't imagine my life without coffee, and coffee w/o cream and a little sweet is not for me. Other than that, I reserve diet sodas for cocktail mixers

(04-13-2010 12:26 PM)Low Carb Cheater Wrote:  My personal "take" on all this is that the whole cephalic response and such are bigger in theory than in actuality. And nobody knows for sure, and the "facts" change. For example, DANDR bans caffeine in induction, The New Atkins reverses this position actually citing a study that it can assist weight loss. ... Stuff like that.

It doesn't mean that it's a contradiction per se. Caffeine can stimulate both insulin and epinephrine/norepinephrine so it could be bad for insulin while still helping weightloss. Also the increased adrenal stimulation could lead to increased cortisol production, which could lead to increased water retention even though fat's being lost.

(04-13-2010 12:26 PM)Low Carb Cheater Wrote:  I take a long term approach to all this. I was having two large mugs of coffee with cream and a Splenda packet every morning since I started on this, so when my weight loss stalled out this wasn't something I suspected.

Stalls happen for many reasons, but since maltodextrin only belongs on stamps or in forbidden candies and artificial sweeteners are the Devil, it's safe to condemn them first.

(04-13-2010 01:21 PM)thombrogan Wrote:  Stalls happen for many reasons, but since maltodextrin only belongs on stamps or in forbidden candies and artificial sweeteners are the Devil, it's safe to condemn them first.

Would the same thing apply to Stevia and Erythritol? I'm using Purevia or Truvia as a sweetener, mostly in recipes that call for small amounts of sugar like coleslaw and hot bacon dressing for spinach salad. Would prefer not to have to give that up. One packet in a recipe that makes 12 servings or so seems so innocuous.

My weight loss stalled for a while and I think I've linked it to drinking Splenda-sweetened soft drinks, there are a lot of them here. Went back to water (I drank only water for about 6 years) and I seem to be back on track.

Splenda and Astpertame do not seem to raise my blood sugar. However, I've tried several times to get off sugar free products. It is very difficult for me. My problem is mainly Crystal Light drinks. I'm not much of a water drinker - especially during the winter. I have no problems giving up diet sodas. Maybe unsweetened tea is the answer? It's my biggest vice that I want to conquer.

(04-14-2010 01:12 PM)deannaintx Wrote:  Would the same thing apply to Stevia and Erythritol? I'm using Purevia or Truvia as a sweetener, mostly in recipes that call for small amounts of sugar like coleslaw and hot bacon dressing for spinach salad. Would prefer not to have to give that up. One packet in a recipe that makes 12 servings or so seems so innocuous.

Actually I came across a reference a while back that Stevia used to be used for diabetics b/c not only did it not raise blood glucose, but it stimulates an insulin release. I'll look for it when I get a chance.

Erythritol? Shouldn't do either, but I had one whopping BG (like 350+) after perhaps getting some on my hand. I hadn't eaten any and this was an outlier (highest "real" BG out of umti-tests with all sorts of "challenges" <130) ... but I do wonder if it influences BG b/c it mimics glucose for the meter and/or if it might elicit an insulin response.

Quote:My weight loss stalled for a while and I think I've linked it to drinking Splenda-sweetened soft drinks, there are a lot of them here. Went back to water (I drank only water for about 6 years) and I seem to be back on track.

These don't bother me except for drink mixes that may have carby fillers. I can't drink plain water. The "lemonade" made with lemon juice, cayenne and water does me good though!

(04-13-2010 12:26 PM)Low Carb Cheater Wrote:  My personal "take" on all this is that the whole cephalic response and such are bigger in theory than in actuality. And nobody knows for sure, and the "facts" change. For example, DANDR bans caffeine in induction, The New Atkins reverses this position actually citing a study that it can assist weight loss. ... Stuff like that.

(04-14-2010 01:12 PM)deannaintx Wrote:  My weight loss stalled for a while and I think I've linked it to drinking Splenda-sweetened soft drinks, there are a lot of them here. Went back to water (I drank only water for about 6 years) and I seem to be back on track.

(04-14-2010 04:01 PM)Noturningback Wrote:  Splenda and Astpertame do not seem to raise my blood sugar. However, I've tried several times to get off sugar free products. It is very difficult for me. My problem is mainly Crystal Light drinks. I'm not much of a water drinker - especially during the winter. I have no problems giving up diet sodas. Maybe unsweetened tea is the answer? It's my biggest vice that I want to conquer.

The debate goes on and on as to whether or not artificial sweetners raise blood glucose, lower it, or have no discernible effect. I think the variety of responses suggest that this is an individual response. One underappreciated possibility is the impact of psychological conditioning on the response of BG to artificial sweeteners, as I've argued for in this other thread on this forum.

Low Carb Cheater, I know from your other posts that you are skeptical of the role of cephalic phase insulin in modulating appetite, but I wanted to share with you an article by Karen Teff called "Physiological Effects of Flavour Perception" which provides a very nice overview of how the flavor-insulin-appetite linkage originates in connections between the oropharyngeal region, the brain, and peripheral receptors and secretory apparatus in the digestive tract. Cephalic phase insulin appears to play a role that is disproportionate to its quantified level. According to Teff:

Quote:An additional characteristic of the cephalic phase reflexes is that they are often of smaller magnitude than their postprandial counterparts, such that neural activation by the perception of food flavour results in a mimicking of what occurs during the postprandial phase but on a smaller scale...It has been postulated that the cephalic phase reflexes are conditioned responses that provide information on the quantity and quality of the food being ingested, thereby allowing the body to make adaptive changes....elicting the the cephalic phase reflexes by perceiving the flavour of food will increase food consumption...rats with larger cephalic phase insulin responses tend to gain more weight than do animals with smaller responses.

Teff also reports on studies showing that administering food directly to the stomach of rats led to reduced insulin and reduced weight gain:

Quote:Because flavour acts on receptors in the head and mouth region, bypassing these receptors by the direct administration of nutrients into the stomach leads to a lack of activation of the parasympathetic nervous system and, hence, no stimulation of the cephalic phase reflexes.

Teff goes on to point out that the cephalic phase insulin response has been shown to occur in rates for both caloric and non-caloric sweetners (like saccharin), although the response is not consistent for humans. She hypothesizes that this variability is due to differences in "cognitive attitudes" towards foods.

In short, individual differences in food flavor preferences and sensitivities , mirrored by different conditioned secretory responses, could well account for why some individuals get an insulin spike in response to artificial sweeteners, whereas others have no such response.