| > If you think about it, any molecule that isn't sugar but tastes like sugar will have a similar molecular shape to sugar. I'm going to go out on a limb here and propose that you may not be a professional medicinal chemist. Many theories conveniently support your position. Of course, many theories conveniently support the other side. How can we objectively determine who is right? Well, let's look at (among many, many other experimental studies) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25786106 which is a recent study of metabolic differences between self-reported aspartame sensitive and non-sensitive individuals. Double-blind, randomised crossover study -- the gold standard. Any differences in metabolic profile between either control/aspartame or sensitive/not? None seen. However, perhaps all non-nutritive sweeteners are not alike. The same senior author as above ran a separate study in a small sample of athletic males where aspartame in addition to carbohydrates resulted in lower insulin response during exercise: https://jissn.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1550-2783-9... Meanwhile, and in a different (grossly obese, NNS-naive) population, sucralose (Stevia) appeared to do the opposite: http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/early/2013/04/30/dc... > Many of these questions can be answered without slow, hard science Sure, if we don't care whether the answers are credible. Proof by analogy is fraud. If we didn't need evidence to make decisions we wouldn't bother accumulating it. |
s/Stevia/Splenda/ (stevia is entirely different from sucralose).