[PublicAnimalNo9]

Maybe schools should stop trying to dictate what consumer products people can and cannot consume on their premises and worry more about providing a quality education to our students.
If schools are going to ban certain foods or beverages due to "health concerns" then where does it end? Lunchmeat contains high amounts of nitrates, so do hotdogs.
As a kid I remember taking a fair share of cold fried chicken to school for lunch. That's certainly not "healthy", especially since it was always the dreaded dark meat.
Dietary concerns should be left to the purview of the parents. If schools want to involve themselves in that process, maybe they could try educating the students by introducing it into an already existing health class. Teach the kids the actual facts without the hype and let them work it out for themselves.

[ShepherdsDog]

Schools have taken over too many responsibilities that use to be the domain of parents, but parents are also complicit in allowing it to happen.

[Zipperfish]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

So , the school board's business decisions trumps this kid's right to an education? I don't think so. Wait for the law suit.

It's probably not a business decision, but a health one.

And that's the problem. Health has become a public decision as opposed to a personal one.

That's why these stories make the news. Becasue there is a growing resentment (myself inccluded) of health care nanny state types who believe that simply infomring people about healthy decisions isn't good enough anymore, and it is teh state's business to make decisions for them.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

So , the school board's business decisions trumps this kid's right to an education? I don't think so. Wait for the law suit.

It's probably not a business decision, but a health one.

And that's the problem. Health has become a public decision as opposed to a personal one.

That's why these stories make the news. Becasue there is a growing resentment (myself inccluded) of health care nanny state types who believe that simply infomring people about healthy decisions isn't good enough anymore, and it is teh state's business to make decisions for them.

That is why more and more people are making bad decisions. Between the bubble wrapping, helicopter parenting and nanny state, kids aren't learning risk assessment from the mistakes and injuries that taught us how to decide if something is a stupid idea or not.

[Freakinoldguy]

andyt andyt:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

If the school doesn't want to sell regular pop that's their choice, but to ban it completely from the premises while permitting equally unhealthy diet pop is bullshit.

It is, but school boards are stupid. Just as laws that prohibit cell phones but not hands free ones.

$1:

Artificial sweeteners may exacerbate, rather than prevent, metabolic disorders such as Type 2 diabetes, a study suggests.

In Wednesday’s issue of the journal Nature, researchers report that artificial sweeteners increase the blood sugar levels in both mice and humans by interfering with microbes in the gut. Increased blood sugar levels are an early indicator of Type 2 diabetes and metabolic disease.

What I find interesting is that about 2 years ago the scientist came out with the Artificial Sweetener causes obesity because people use it and then pig out after thinking they've helped their diet and now this study shows up using the really scientific words like. "may exacerbate".

So here's the question. Why did I lose 20 lbs and drop my blood sugar levels from 7 to 5.6 by using artificial sweetener and dropping sugar altogether especially since the report on TV said exercise didn't help people to lose that weight if they used sweetener and if it affects the microbes in the gut could people just take probiotics to fix the problem?

I'm sorry but this sounds more like the Sugar industry has hired scientists to find reasons not to use sweeteners than giving any of the benefits of using it vice sugar.

[bootlegga]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

What I find interesting is that about 2 years ago the scientist came out with the Artificial Sweetener causes obesity because people use it and then pig out after thinking they've helped their diet and now this study shows up using the really scientific words like. "may exacerbate".

So here's the question. Why did I lose 20 lbs and drop my blood sugar levels from 7 to 5.6 by using artificial sweetener and dropping sugar altogether especially since the report on TV said exercise didn't help people to lose that weight if they used sweetener and if it affects the microbes in the gut could people just take probiotics to fix the problem?

I'm sorry but this sounds more like the Sugar industry has hired scientists to find reasons not to use sweeteners than giving any of the benefits of using it vice sugar.

Highly plausible about the industry link.

I cut out sugary drinks (of all kinds) years ago and my weight dropped and blood sugar levels have increased for the better, not the worse.

[ShepherdsDog]

$1:

and blood sugar levels have increased for the better, not the worse.

Were you hypoglycemic or something?

[DrCaleb]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

So here's the question. Why did I lose 20 lbs and drop my blood sugar levels from 7 to 5.6 by using artificial sweetener and dropping sugar altogether especially since the report on TV said exercise didn't help people to lose that weight if they used sweetener and if it affects the microbes in the gut could people just take probiotics to fix the problem?

I'm sorry but this sounds more like the Sugar industry has hired scientists to find reasons not to use sweeteners than giving any of the benefits of using it vice sugar.

As I said earlier, the study didn't look at all artificial sweeteners, nor did they test in humans. It was only saccharine, and only in mice. They only used 7 or 8 humans, and used old data on 1000 or so people to come up with a study that merits further study in humans. They didn't test Stevia or Aspartame or Sucralose. And the only way to get rid of the bad bacteria was antibiotics.

I lowered my bloodsugar using Stevia and Sucralose instead of sugar, but it still didn't stop my pancreas from imploding. Doctor figures my diabetes is a hereditary problem and dropping carb and sugars from my diet only slowed the progression.

[ShepherdsDog]

There is the theory of the thrift gene that ties into the genetic component. It was a survival trait that helped us survive times of famine, but in this time of constant feast, it's detrimental. In those days when it was needed, we were usually dead of old age or injury before any noticeable damage would have been noticed. My biggest problems associated with it are nerve damage and macular degeneration. However, if I live another 25 years the damage will be very debilitating.

[bootlegga]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

$1:

and blood sugar levels have increased for the better, not the worse.

Were you hypoglycemic or something?

No, it was 'high normal' at my first physical about 10 years ago - now it is considered average, which is good because there is a history of diabetes in my mother's family tree.

[DrCaleb]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

There is the theory of the thrift gene that ties into the genetic component. It was a survival trait that helped us survive times of famine, but in this time of constant feast, it's detrimental. In those days when it was needed, we were usually dead of old age or injury before any noticeable damage would have been noticed. My biggest problems associated with it are nerve damage and macular degeneration. However, if I live another 25 years the damage will be very debilitating.

I hear you there. My 'all you can eat' feast is everything I can fit on a coffee cup saucer, around 400 calories. And I still can't lose weight.

Lost a small portion of my retina near the optic nerve, but it doesn't bug me much. No nerve damage yet. (knocks on wood). Don't know why I'm saving for retirement, that's never going to happen.

[bootlegga]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Don't know why I'm saving for retirement, that's never going to happen.

Murphy's Law, that's why...

[Strutz]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

And that's the problem. Health has become a public decision as opposed to a personal one.

That's why these stories make the news. Becasue there is a growing resentment (myself inccluded) of health care nanny state types who believe that simply infomring people about healthy decisions isn't good enough anymore, and it is teh state's business to make decisions for them.

That is why more and more people are making bad decisions. Between the bubble wrapping, helicopter parenting and nanny state, kids aren't learning risk assessment from the mistakes and injuries that taught us how to decide if something is a stupid idea or not.

Both are excellent points!

[Freakinoldguy]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

What I find interesting is that about 2 years ago the scientist came out with the Artificial Sweetener causes obesity because people use it and then pig out after thinking they've helped their diet and now this study shows up using the really scientific words like. "may exacerbate".

So here's the question. Why did I lose 20 lbs and drop my blood sugar levels from 7 to 5.6 by using artificial sweetener and dropping sugar altogether especially since the report on TV said exercise didn't help people to lose that weight if they used sweetener and if it affects the microbes in the gut could people just take probiotics to fix the problem?

I'm sorry but this sounds more like the Sugar industry has hired scientists to find reasons not to use sweeteners than giving any of the benefits of using it vice sugar.

Highly plausible about the industry link.

I cut out sugary drinks (of all kinds) years ago and my weight dropped and blood sugar levels have increased for the better, not the worse.

So if this study is true, I guess we're the exception, not the rule.

[andyt]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

So here's the question. Why did I lose 20 lbs and drop my blood sugar levels from 7 to 5.6 by using artificial sweetener and dropping sugar altogether especially since the report on TV said exercise didn't help people to lose that weight if they used sweetener and if it affects the microbes in the gut could people just take probiotics to fix the problem?

I'm sorry but this sounds more like the Sugar industry has hired scientists to find reasons not to use sweeteners than giving any of the benefits of using it vice sugar.

If you dropped 20lbs but don't exercise, you'd be much better off putting those 20lbs back on and working out. Being skinny but not fit is not healthy at all - the people most likely to die are the underweight who don't exercise. 20lbs on an average guy has actually found to give better longevity than being of optimal weight. Exercise can actually make you put on weight as you turn fat to muscle and eat more.

the study also said this points to how important intestinal microbiota are, and how they are affect by all sorts of things, drugs we take, etc. Probiotics aren't all that effective - very hard to get them to survive until they hit the gut, and then the right part of the gut. I've given them a pretty good try, didn't notice any difference - maybe if someone is sick it would be different. I would certainly take them during and after a course of anti-biotics.

Moderate exercise and a reasonably healthy diet (I don't think artificial sweeteners qualify) are the best things you can do for yourself.