Is Monk Fruit Sweetener Safe?

Is Monk Fruit Sweetener Safe?
4.47 (89.41%) 85 votes

The natural plant-based sweeteners stevia and monk fruit (Luo Han Guo) are pitted head-to-head against aspartame and Splenda.

Discuss
Republish

Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video.

A number of artificial sweeteners have been FDA-approved in North America, including aspartame and sucralose (sold as Splenda). But, there are also natural high-intensity sweeteners found in plants. The global market for non-nutritive sweeteners in general—these non-caloric sweeteners—is in the billions, including all the artificial ones, “and two natural [ones] extracted from plants…stevia…and monk fruit.” I’ve done a video about stevia; what about monk fruit?

“The fruits of Luo Han Guo [monk fruit in Chinese] have [evidently] been used for hundreds of years as a natural sweetener and…folk medicine. “The non-caloric sweet taste [comes from] mogrosides, a group of cucurbitane-type triterpene glycosides that [make up] about 1% of the fruit,” and are like hundreds of times sweeter than sugar.

“The mixed mogrosides have been estimated to be about 300 times as sweet as [table sugar], so that an 80% extract was nearly 250 times sweeter than sugar.” If you read reviews in Chinese natural medicine journals, you’ll see pronouncements like this: monk fruit “has been shown to have anti-coughing effects, anti-asthma.., anti-oxidation, liver-protection, [blood sugar]-lowering, immunoregulation, and anti-cancer.” But, what they don’t tell you up front is that they’re talking about reducing ammonia-induced mouse coughs.

“A natural food sweetener with anti-pancreatic cancer properties.” Monk fruit “may be used for daily consumption as an additive in foods and drinks to prevent or treat pancreatic cancer.” Yeah, maybe in your pet mouse. And, the “[a]nti-proliferative activity of…monk fruit in colorectal cancer and throat cancer” was on colorectal and throat cancer cells in a petri dish. Now, they did show mogrosides killing off colorectal cancer cells and throat cancer cells, and our digestive tract could be directly exposed to these compounds if we ate them, but what’s missing? Right, they didn’t test it against normal cells. You could pee in a petri dish and kill off cancer cells. The whole point is to find something that kills off cancer but leaves normal cells alone, something that they weren’t able to show here.

Are there any human studies on monk fruit? No, … until, now. “Owing to the rapidly growing popularity of natural plant-[based sweeteners],” they thought it would be “of interest to determine whether natural [sweeteners] would be a healthier alternative to sugar [or] artificial [sweeteners].” So, they randomized people to drink an aspartame-sweetened beverage versus monk fruit-sweetened, versus stevia, versus table sugar. Then, they measured blood sugars over 24 hours, and there was “no significant difference…found” between any of them.

But, wait a second. The sugar group was given 16 spoonfuls of sugar, the amount of added sugar in a 20-ounce bottle of Coke; so, the other three groups consumed 16 fewer spoonfuls of sugar, and still had the same average blood sugars? But, table sugar causes a big blood sugar spike. Here it is; I’ll show you. Drink that bottle of sugar water with its 20 sugar cubes’ worth of sugar, and your blood sugars jump 40 points over the next hour. Whereas, you give them an aspartame-sweetened beverage, or monk fruit, or stevia, and nothing happens—which is what you’d expect, right? These are non-caloric sweeteners; no calories. It’s just like you’re drinking water, right? So, how could your daily blood sugar values average out the same? The only way that could happen is if the non-calorie sweeteners maybe made your blood sugar spikes worse somehow later in the day?

Look what happens when you give people Splenda mixed with sugar water. You get a greater blood sugar spike, a greater insulin spike chugging the sugar with sucralose than without, even though Splenda alone causes no spike of its own. So, does aspartame do the same thing? At the one-hour mark, they fed people a regular lunch. And, so, the blood sugars went back up and down as they normally would after a meal. Not spiking as high as drinking straight sugar water, just a gentle up and down. Okay, but that was in the group that drank the sugar an hour before. In the group that drank the aspartame, even though their blood sugars didn’t rise at the time, an hour later at lunch, they shot up higher, as if the person had just drank a bottle of soda.

Okay, but what about the natural sweeteners, stevia and monk fruit? Same thing. Same exaggerated blood sugar spike to a regular meal taken an hour later. So, you can see how it all equals out in terms of average blood sugars, even though in these three non-caloric sweetener groups, they took in 16 spoonfuls less sugar, at least in part because they ate more. After drinking a Diet Coke, you’re more likely to eat more at your next meal than drinking a regular Coke. In fact, so much more that the energy ‘saved’ from replacing sugar with non-caloric sweeteners “was fully compensated for at subsequent meals; hence, no difference in total daily [calorie] intake was found.”

“The [sugar]-sweetened beverage led to large spikes in [both] blood [sugar] and insulin…, whereas these responses were higher for [the three other] beverages following the…lunch.” So, when it came to calorie intake, or blood sugars, or insulin spikes, they were all just as bad.

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Image credit: Wagon16 via flickr. Image has been modified.

Motion graphics by Avocado Video.

Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video.

A number of artificial sweeteners have been FDA-approved in North America, including aspartame and sucralose (sold as Splenda). But, there are also natural high-intensity sweeteners found in plants. The global market for non-nutritive sweeteners in general—these non-caloric sweeteners—is in the billions, including all the artificial ones, “and two natural [ones] extracted from plants…stevia…and monk fruit.” I’ve done a video about stevia; what about monk fruit?

“The fruits of Luo Han Guo [monk fruit in Chinese] have [evidently] been used for hundreds of years as a natural sweetener and…folk medicine. “The non-caloric sweet taste [comes from] mogrosides, a group of cucurbitane-type triterpene glycosides that [make up] about 1% of the fruit,” and are like hundreds of times sweeter than sugar.

“The mixed mogrosides have been estimated to be about 300 times as sweet as [table sugar], so that an 80% extract was nearly 250 times sweeter than sugar.” If you read reviews in Chinese natural medicine journals, you’ll see pronouncements like this: monk fruit “has been shown to have anti-coughing effects, anti-asthma.., anti-oxidation, liver-protection, [blood sugar]-lowering, immunoregulation, and anti-cancer.” But, what they don’t tell you up front is that they’re talking about reducing ammonia-induced mouse coughs.

“A natural food sweetener with anti-pancreatic cancer properties.” Monk fruit “may be used for daily consumption as an additive in foods and drinks to prevent or treat pancreatic cancer.” Yeah, maybe in your pet mouse. And, the “[a]nti-proliferative activity of…monk fruit in colorectal cancer and throat cancer” was on colorectal and throat cancer cells in a petri dish. Now, they did show mogrosides killing off colorectal cancer cells and throat cancer cells, and our digestive tract could be directly exposed to these compounds if we ate them, but what’s missing? Right, they didn’t test it against normal cells. You could pee in a petri dish and kill off cancer cells. The whole point is to find something that kills off cancer but leaves normal cells alone, something that they weren’t able to show here.

Are there any human studies on monk fruit? No, … until, now. “Owing to the rapidly growing popularity of natural plant-[based sweeteners],” they thought it would be “of interest to determine whether natural [sweeteners] would be a healthier alternative to sugar [or] artificial [sweeteners].” So, they randomized people to drink an aspartame-sweetened beverage versus monk fruit-sweetened, versus stevia, versus table sugar. Then, they measured blood sugars over 24 hours, and there was “no significant difference…found” between any of them.

But, wait a second. The sugar group was given 16 spoonfuls of sugar, the amount of added sugar in a 20-ounce bottle of Coke; so, the other three groups consumed 16 fewer spoonfuls of sugar, and still had the same average blood sugars? But, table sugar causes a big blood sugar spike. Here it is; I’ll show you. Drink that bottle of sugar water with its 20 sugar cubes’ worth of sugar, and your blood sugars jump 40 points over the next hour. Whereas, you give them an aspartame-sweetened beverage, or monk fruit, or stevia, and nothing happens—which is what you’d expect, right? These are non-caloric sweeteners; no calories. It’s just like you’re drinking water, right? So, how could your daily blood sugar values average out the same? The only way that could happen is if the non-calorie sweeteners maybe made your blood sugar spikes worse somehow later in the day?

Look what happens when you give people Splenda mixed with sugar water. You get a greater blood sugar spike, a greater insulin spike chugging the sugar with sucralose than without, even though Splenda alone causes no spike of its own. So, does aspartame do the same thing? At the one-hour mark, they fed people a regular lunch. And, so, the blood sugars went back up and down as they normally would after a meal. Not spiking as high as drinking straight sugar water, just a gentle up and down. Okay, but that was in the group that drank the sugar an hour before. In the group that drank the aspartame, even though their blood sugars didn’t rise at the time, an hour later at lunch, they shot up higher, as if the person had just drank a bottle of soda.

Okay, but what about the natural sweeteners, stevia and monk fruit? Same thing. Same exaggerated blood sugar spike to a regular meal taken an hour later. So, you can see how it all equals out in terms of average blood sugars, even though in these three non-caloric sweetener groups, they took in 16 spoonfuls less sugar, at least in part because they ate more. After drinking a Diet Coke, you’re more likely to eat more at your next meal than drinking a regular Coke. In fact, so much more that the energy ‘saved’ from replacing sugar with non-caloric sweeteners “was fully compensated for at subsequent meals; hence, no difference in total daily [calorie] intake was found.”

“The [sugar]-sweetened beverage led to large spikes in [both] blood [sugar] and insulin…, whereas these responses were higher for [the three other] beverages following the…lunch.” So, when it came to calorie intake, or blood sugars, or insulin spikes, they were all just as bad.

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Image credit: Wagon16 via flickr. Image has been modified.

Motion graphics by Avocado Video.

Doctor's Note

This is a link to the video I referred to: Is Stevia Good for You?

I also have some other videos on aspartame and Splenda:

Of course sugar isn’t good for you, either. How Much Added Sugar Is Too Much? and If Fructose Is Bad, What About Fruit?

Can you overdo fruit? Find out in How Much Fruit Is Too Much?

If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my videos for free by clicking here.

253 responses to “Is Monk Fruit Sweetener Safe?

Comment Etiquette

On NutritionFacts.org, you'll find a vibrant community of nutrition enthusiasts, health professionals, and many knowledgeable users seeking to discover the healthiest diet to eat for themselves and their families. As always, our goal is to foster conversations that are insightful, engaging, and most of all, helpful – from the nutrition beginners to the experts in our community.

To do this we need your help, so here are some basic guidelines to get you started.

The Short List

To help maintain and foster a welcoming atmosphere in our comments, please refrain from rude comments, name-calling, and responding to posts that break the rules (see our full Community Guidelines for more details). We will remove any posts in violation of our rules when we see it, which will, unfortunately, include any nicer comments that may have been made in response.

Be respectful and help out our staff and volunteer health supporters by actively not replying to comments that are breaking the rules. Instead, please flag or report them by submitting a ticket to our help desk. NutritionFacts.org is made up of an incredible staff and many dedicated volunteers that work hard to ensure that the comments section runs smoothly and we spend a great deal of time reading comments from our community members.

Have a correction or suggestion for video or blog? Please contact us to let us know. Submitting a correction this way will result in a quicker fix than commenting on a thread with a suggestion or correction.

View the Full Community Guidelines

  1. That last study needs a control group drinking a glass of water before lunch. I have a hunch that a control group drinking water only would have had a similar post-lunch blood sugar spike as the stevia, monk fruit and aspartame groups. If you have zero calories before lunch, you will eat more at lunch than if you had eaten 16 spoonfuls of sugar.

    1. Great point! Excellent observation. I’m looking forward to a response from a site moderator.

      meanwhile, why eat sweetened foods at all? I’m trying to tame my sweet tooth (I think I inherited it from my mother) by eating less and less of it.

      1. Agree, sweeteners are just another dietary addiction. I stopped all added sweeteners when I went WFPB. Now many, many foods have a natural sweetness to them. And I can enjoy non sweet foods like cranberries, lemons and limes. Oh, and all my tooth problems went away.

    2. Normally the nutritionfacts folks call out details of an improperly run experiment and/or confounding factors that it was overlooking. If there are obvious oversights in how this study was done i’m surprised the nutritionfacts crew didn’t call them out in this talk.

      1. I am not a moderator but aren’t these comments missing the point somewhat?

        The intention of the study was to compare the effects of sweeteners with the effects of non-nutritive sweeteners. Water is not a sweetener of any kind so it is not relevant to the study aims and not of interest to people who use sweeteners and simply want to know if one kind is better than another

        I am sure that there are plenty of studies measuring the effects of drinking eg sweetnened beverages versus drinking water or not drinking anything at all. But that is an entirely different question to the one addressed in this study. Or just compare the effect shown in the study with the baseline figure.

        1. Thank you, TG. I was also surprised to read the comments about a supposed lack of water group.

          I might add to clarify that the point of the video, as far as I can tell, was to show that when people eat ad libitum (i.e. without controlling/restricting calories), they can’t expect to lose weight or have better blood sugar control due to replacing sugar with non-nutritive sweeteners, because the additional hunger will eventually make them compensate by eating more calories. But that’s the promise behind non-nutritive sweeteners, while there isn’t (or at least there shouldn’t be) such promise behind drinking water. In other words, normally non-nutritive sweeteners simply do not “work”.

        2. Good point TG.

          I think what people are confused about (going by what I’m confused about) is what is actually the cause for the spike at the next meal and would it occur even if drinking plain water or were the non-caloric sweeteners actually the factor. One of the volunteers gave an explanation as to why the non-caloric sweeteners may cause us to eat more which I found helpful. And going by her explanation, I’d be curious if the same thing would occur if the non-caloric sweetener was mixed with actual food containing fiber and other things. Maybe it was the total lack of calories along with the sweetness that triggered the brain to eat more later on. I also wonder what would have happened in this study if their meal had consisted of WFPB foods which can naturally control blood sugar spikes.

          I’d like to know because based solely on this, it seems like a better choice to stick with WFPB sweeteners or even things closer to it like raw cane sugar, date sugar, molasses, etc. but if the effect doesn’t occur if consumed with real food, using something like erythritol might still be a good alternative. Also would be helpful to know with some certainty for diabetics.

      2. My read of it is that 1. you DO save a sugar spike for the meal that you ingest the plant based sweetener; Is this only because overall calories are less? and 2. if you eat a set amount of food for your next meal, not being governed by their reported increased appetite which results in an increased calorie intake, you would NOT have the higher spike? I would think that the important comparison would be to control the calorie intake of the two meals, or at least for the following meal. And would the blood sugar response be the same if the calories in the first meal were equal with the sugar and the plant based sweetener meals?

    3. I know countless diabetics that happen to both drink water and constantly monitor their blood sugar, and never have I heard of one getting a blood sugar spike after drinking water. In fact according to doctors,” Water will not raise blood glucose levels, which is why it is so beneficial to drink when people with diabetes have high blood sugar, as it enables more glucose to be flushed out of the blood.”

    4. Julie, I fully agree! Awesome point, I can’t believe they didn’t have one! Until then there’s really no conclusion, is there?

  2. Is this sugar spike because of the previous sugar replacement or the calories eaten? Is it because people at more? Was the meal a controlled calorie meal? Too many variables.

    1. ad libitum means at one’s pleasure. That would make this study more of a social experiment than a scientific one. It wasn’t a blind study, had no control group, had no diabetics, and they ate what ever they wanted for lunch. Just because it’s the only study doesn’t mean it needs to be used. It also doesn’t answer the title’s question.

    2. Excellent points John, I too wonder why the study was so loose with its controls. Those spikes could indicate higher calorie consumption, higher carbs, higher fats that can cause a glycemic spike.

      The study only seems to infer that NNS sweeteners have a longer half-life then sucrose or glucose, and that having sugar at your next meal will raise insulin levels.

      The study should be repeated in the future, and strict controls should be in place so that the subjects consume the same normal meal, same ratio of protein, carbohydrates, and fats to correct for any bias.

    3. Normally the nutritionfacts folks call out details of an improperly run experiment and/or confounding factors that it was overlooking. If there are obvious oversights in how this study was done i’m surprised the nutritionfacts crew didn’t call them out in this talk.

    4. I would suspect that the spike comes from disruption of intestinal flora that do not like sweeteners that are noncaloric.

    5. Hi, John Cusie. I was taught in graduate school that the reason non-caloric sweeteners cause blood sugar spikes later in the day is that the sweet taste sets up the expectation of a carbohydrate load, either through brain signalling, sweet taste receptors in the gut, or both. When that expectation is not fulfilled, people crave carbohydrate, and eat more when given the opportunity. This appears also to increase the insulin response to subsequent meals. I hope that helps!

      1. That is great info Christine! Thanks for sharing, I found that really helpful.
        Have they ever studied if sugarless gum (even ones using more natural alternatives like xylitol) had an influence on overall blood sugar and calorie consumption? That would be interesting.

  3. I’m not a vegan. On my morning hot gruel I alternate as to sweeteners: either 1/2 teaspoon raw, unheated honey or 1/2 teaspoon unsulphured blackstrap molasses. Never tried those other sweeteners.

      1. I don’t eat it seemingly, staying away from high sugar content things, but honey is a animal product. It produces less harm by my read for bees than wild bee hives…..the queen is replaced manually before she produces inordinate amount of drones. As they age the queens, due to genetic deterioration, produce more and more drones. But a commercial hive the queen is replaced before that happens. The other bee kill or drive out excess drones as they are useless. So less harm to bee occur with a commercial hive.

        But it still is a animal product. Which in diet a vegan diet does not include.

      2. Not a whole food plant based [wfpb] product which is what nutritionfacts talks ultimately all lead to as being the kind of food you should be trying to use to sustain yourself to whatever extent you can manage it.

        1. @YeahRight, don’t look at it as being a good or bad person but rather what kind of footprint you personally want to have on world.

          Anytime I find myself struggling to stick to whole food plant based [wfpb] nutrition for the reasons of lowering ones statistical chances of getting chronic illness or causes of early mortality I flip the my perspective. I look at it from the angle where even if eating this way had no differing impact on my health why do I have the right to eat foods that required other sentient beings to unnecessarily suffer. Some day a higher intelligence sentient being, or dictator, may have power over our day to day lives at which point one might appreciate them not making us live a life of pain and suffering in order for them to enjoy some pleasure that is unnecessary for their survival.

          The article @Joshua Pritikin pointed to [ http://www.satyamag.com/sept05/greger.html ] is interesting as it shows a side of dr. greger focused on the humane treatment of other sentient beings, vs our own health, that is aligned more with the efforts of dr. neil barnard and the work that his physician’s committee for responsible medicine [ https://pcrm.org ] non-profit does.

          1. myusrn, OMG, look what I started over a lousy 1/2 teas. of honey every other day. Am reminded of the Church Lady from SNL. “Well, isn’t that special!” :-)

            We should never judge others as to how they’re evolving in life; we all get there eventually. And sometimes we just can’t avoid stepping on ants on the sidewalk.

            1. Yr….you are producing less harm actually. It may not be healthy.
              Bees queens are replaced in commercial hives….. which is where honey comes from. If they are not the hive dies out.The queen starts to have a genetic deterioration with age which produces more drones. Drones are useless bees that only serve to impregnate the queen..they serve no purpose other than that. A old queen produces to many of them always. The other bees kill the excess drones or simply drive them out.
              The queen is taken out and replaced with a fresh one in a commercial hive. Yes she dies, but she would produce 100’s more drones that would quickly die after birth by other bees actions.

              And there is gross depopulation of bees at the present time due to insecticide use. So more hives may be better.
              But to repeat it is not healthy. But you may be doing better for bees and the environment presently.

              Some PETA person will probably now provide some illogical refute but this is the bare bones of it.

              1. I think three years is the time for replacement of the queen in commercial hives but could be wrong.
                This is a grey area as regarding less harm, vegan ideology strictly considered(which is no animal product nor use ever), and dietary veganism.

                Strict vegans in ideology will not even ride horses and consider owning a dog or cat a negative, as it is use of a animal for human cause.
                But few are that extreme in it. Perhaps PETA has changed but once that was their opinion..
                I am glad they exist, was even a member at one time, as they provide a extreme from which a reasonable center can come into being in consideration of this thing.

                  1. I know…I avoid them as much as possible. If, however, I do happen to squash one of the poor things, I wish it a happy reincarnation into (maybe) a caterpillar. And from there it becomes a butterfly! :-) Wheeeeeee!

                  2. Do ants or any other bugs we kill inadvertently while walking or driving around suffer in any way close to how animals raised for food production do? Ironically evidence shows the ones who are not initially slaughtered for their food production, i.e. dairy & eggs, get a double whammy as they lives are no walk in the park and then eventually get slaughtered in whatever the most economical mass production slaughter process is.

                    As for commercial bees if the nurturing of them is necessary to produce plant food and honey is a by product then might as well have people who like that byproduct putting it to use if the bees have no need for it. Presumably some aspect of their lifecycle does require it but I guess not in the quantities that commercial bees crank out.

                    1. “Do ants or any other bugs we kill inadvertently while walking or driving around suffer in any way close to how animals raised for food production do?”

                      Not disputing that a bit. But then, how can we ever know for sure? Maybe the little ant, while gathering a bread crumb to feed its family back in “the hill,” suffered horrible pain from that big mean foot. And its family will now have no food (as they’re still wee little ones, you see).

                      There is a saying….something like, “Energy never dies, it merely changes form.”

                1. I know all about Bit size vegan I even have corresponded with her in years past. She has however now stopped posting her you tube stuff with a couple of exceptions, citing autism difficulty as partial cause.
                  Any farming practice can be done in harmful bad ways. To include bee keeping. Most bee keepers, nevertheless vegan you tubers, do not know of the inherent tendency by queen bees to have mutated genes as they age. They think it is simply a matter of less eggs which it is not. It is a matter of more drones which act as a energy drain to kill the wild hive.

                  Beekeeping prevents that and they also do assist in the presence of hives where they may not be in todays disturbed environment
                  And as mentioned without commercial bee hives peoples which often are just mom and pop operations done on rural home environment, (they keep some hives and sell some of the honey), we have no constituency fighting from the corporate side use of pesticides which are harming wild and kept bees.

                  1. She still does activism, she’s just not doing her youtube channel like she was at the moment, but I don’t see how that’s relevant to the subject. She’s incredibly well researched on these things, more so than you ron, she’s spent days straight doing research on one subject with no sleep. And no offense but you’re quick to take an authoritative position on just about any subject which you’ve explained in the past is because or partly because you believe yourself to be god or a god so I’m going to stick with Emily here. In any case, what’s shown in her video is the way the honey industry works as a whole. All farming of any animal is wrong because it’s wrong to use and exploit animals in the first place. It’s a vegan saying “it’s not HOW they are used, it’s THAT they are used.” Inevitably when any animal is used which in and of itself is a violation of their rights, it will result in cruel practices so therefore, even if someone believes they have rights over other animals (that belief does not actually give them rights however), if they wanted to prevent cruelty to animals as much as possible, they should be against the “farming” of any animal because it creates the open door for farming of animals which will always result in cruelties against them.

                    1. Authoritative position…who is defining vegan for all of us to follow? Me or you. I say people can self define that term and you say not is has to be my way or the highway.
                      As to the god things I have expressed classical hindu thought on that which you are not familiar with and are expressing that.

                      AS to bees you know none of this as Emily has not spoken of this as she does not know of this..
                      “Another form of queen reproduction is supersedure, when the old queen is replaced. Colonies led by old queens with low fecundity show significantly reduced honey production (Nelson and Smirl 1977). High quality queens produce colonies that grow larger, build more comb, and store more honey and pollen comparatively (Rangel et al 2013). The causes of supersedure are not well understood but a few factors likely contribute, such as: reduced presence of queen pheromones, an injured or diseased queen, laying unfertilized eggs or insufficient quantities of fertilized eggs, and age differences in pheromone production.”

                      Unfertilized eggs are drones. So the aging queen produces to many unfertilized eggs.Know what the hive does with to many drones especially in winter..kills them. They will only allow a certain percent to live.

                      This is no fantasy world with us protecting or using bees, truth is their life is not so pretty. The queen also murders all her competitors in wild hives.
                      Do we prevent the killing of drones by other bees if we replace the queen who is aging ..yes we do.

                      So they produce less harm and we get a healthier hive.
                      But you think you know but you do not.

                    2. Here is a very rough primer on the thought I mention from hindu we are all god..
                      “According to the Vedas, each human being is a personification of Purusha, the Cosmic Being. He contains within himself the whole universe. In his highest aspect, he is the eternal, indestructible Self. Therefore, he should represent him in word and deed and live as if God would have lived upon earth. The incarnation of Rama is a perfect example in this regard. He was born as a human being and experienced human emotions. He also made some mistakes in judgment due to the limitations to which humans are subject, but upheld Dharma and fought with evil to protect the world.”

                      I can’t use this to educate you to the whole of it but be assured though Emily may not espouse this philosophy 100’s of millions of Hindus do. As with drone oversupply and bees it is a thing you are not familiar with.

                    3. And to add..
                      “Whatever path one may choose, one should not forget that the paths of Hinduism are never separate from God or from the act of living. They connect both and remains inseparable from both. The path which a Hindu chooses is one long sacrifice in itself. It starts from God, paved with God, leads to God and ends in God. The practitioner may not be aware of it, but God is”

                      Or to put is in a more succient fashion….we all are god to include me.

                    4. Omg there is no way I’m reading through all that ron! I’ll just comment on your first remark and then I’m done.

                      I’m not taking on an authorative position, I’m briefly reciting the history and definition of the term vegan. You just want to turn it into some personal philosophy in some “hey man, whatever it means to you..” way, but it isn’t. It’s a real term for practical use and it happens to hold a great weight of responsibility within its very name because it is the only defining term to respect all life without any speciesism and act accordingly; it’s the only term that gives some recognition that ALL sentient beings have basic rights and acknowledges our capability and responsibility to respect those rights.

                    5. Nonsense the vegan society identified the term as first being coined in relation to diet so that is as fact established.
                      Then is was expanded to lifestyle in 1949…..

                      ” “n November 1944, Donald Watson (right and below) called a meeting with five other non-dairy vegetarians, including Elsie Shrigley, to discuss non-dairy vegetarian diets and lifestyles. Though many held similar views at the time, these six pioneers were the first to actively found a new movement – despite opposition. The group felt a new word was required to describe them; something more concise than ‘non-dairy vegetarians’. Rejected words included ‘dairyban’, ‘vitan’, and ‘benevore’. They settled on ‘vegan’, a word that Donald Watson later described as containing the first three and last two letters of ‘vegetarian’. In the words of Donald Watson, it marked “the beginning and end of vegetarian.” The word vegan was coined by Donald Watson from a suggestion by early members Mr G, A Henderson and his wife Fay K. Henderson that the society should be called Allvega and the magazine Allvegan.
                      Although the vegan diet was defined early on it was as late as 1949 before Leslie J Cross pointed out that the society lacked a definition of veganism and he suggested “[t]he principle of the emancipation of animals from exploitation by man”.

                      Dr Greger has already established the necessity to not make veganism into this thing….

                      ”Our position on honey therefore just doesn’t make any sense, and I think the general population knows this on an intuitive level. Veganism for them, then, becomes more about some quasi-religious personal purity, rather than about stopping animal abuse. No wonder veganism can seem nonsensical to the average person. We have this kind of magical thinking; we feel good about ourselves as if we’re actually helping the animals obsessing about where some trace ingredient comes from, when in fact it may have the opposite effect. We may be hurting animals by making veganism seem more like petty dogmatic self-flagellation. ”

                      Petty dogmatic and self flagellation…which is exactly what you are making it seem.

            2. I’d be curious to know how many vegans on this board never wear leather shoes, or carry a leather wallet or handbag. And that’s just for starters.

              1. Not to speak for other but..
                Veganism is about usually producing less harm not no harm. We kill by eating always, invariably some small bugs and occasionally rodents are killed in harvesting..it happens.

                Some may not have great amounts of money to spend.Getting certified vegan boots may cost 300 or so. Getting a majority synthetic that may have leather laces may be for the same quality 150.
                Leather is a product of cattle but the prime mover the reason they are slaughtered is for the meat not the hide.
                I wear a leather jacket someone gave me 30 years ago…is that harm? Does that mean I am not vegan?
                Not really, I care for the environment so to produce a new jacket produces way more carbon of any kind. I simply do not need another.

                I am pretty certain in a new car there may be some animal product, perhaps a gasket or this or that, a lubricant.
                Elon MUsk I think offers a vegan tesla…..70k or so. I may buy a hybrid to replace my gas guzzler with some animal product in it. But how much less carbon is produced which helps how many animals? And I can afford 35k not 70k.

                So it gets complex…we do what we can usually. Not more but not less.
                . WE eat what we eat daily, and with not to much care and about the same price can avoid all meat fish and diary. And done right it is as healthy or healthier for us.
                The idea we may not do veganism totally or absolutely is a faulted logical construct. I see others in jail rightfully and agree it must be done but know fully not all get caught. So absolute determinations do not decide moral decisions or ability nor action.

              2. YeahRight, if someone buys an animal product like you’ve just mentioned, they cannot call themselves a vegan. But wearing old boots, for example, that you owned prior to going vegan, does not make you less of a vegan. Some wear out their old stuff, others do not. But buying new is out of the question.

                Veganism is very definitive despite people’s attempts to make silly arguments about things they’d like to be “technically vegan.” But it’s definitive because it’s an incredibly logical thing and has been defined as such from the beginning. Common sense and practicality goes hand in hand with it but I’m afraid common sense and practicality don’t always go and hand in hand with the general human population so despite the term and history of the term vegan having great clarity, people like weigh in… A lot of it is because the term is abused do much.

                1. Here from the vegan society a UK group which advocated for veganism and follows in the footsteps of the UK vegetarian society which Ghandi was a part of, when he did his education in England..
                  “A philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude——all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.”

                  To whit if someone for some rare reason such as lack of funds…. had a choice of leather shoes to wear during a winter storm perhaps and no others available, such as one may find in a goodwill store.. that is as far as is possible and practicable.
                  Would they still be vegan and call themselves so..sure they can and could. Rare but it could happen. Cheapest used stuff is often not vegan certified. And a thing like a shoe or belt may appear vegan but some subtle ingredient a boot lace perhaps may make it not so.

                  The site goes on to explain since the UK requires all drugs to be animal tested prior to use, one must of course allow them if that is the only thing available to cure treat a disease.

                  This rule must always be applied..”as far as is possible and practicable”

                  1. In total this from the vegan society…:Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose.

            3. I don’t think myusrn was judging or reprimanding but only sharing a perspective, they didn’t come across as aggressive or anything to me in any way. I got the impression it only got into the topic of veganism because Joshua tried to say that honey was vegan after you pointed out that you weren’t vegan. I don’t think it would have progressed into anything had he not made that inaccurate claim.

      3. Nutritionfacts is not a vegan community.

        Honey is disproved as a sweetener because of it’s nutritional profile and subsequent metabolic behaviour, this is coming from the fact that it has no fiber and lacks a strong phytochemical profile.

        This was to be expected as bees do not make honey from the entire plants but solely from a particular plant secretion.

        1. I suppose one could say then that honey is technically a processed food, as is the milk from a cow. After all everything ultimately get’s its life force from the sun.
          But what about green smoothies? They are processed.
          Oh. it’s all too complicated.
          I think I’ll go drink a glass of spring water and fast for a few days and ponder on the meaning of life before I entertain pulling a radish out of the ground and processing it in my mouth.
          My point?
          There is none, so I will now crawl back into my hole and paint another meaningless masterpiece of artwork.

      4. Thanks for posting that link Joshua!

        It is right on target for what I have seen in my life.

        The people around me are hostile toward veganism and it is partly because of topics like honey and because of things like people pouring blood on fur coats and leather.

        For a few months, my going vegan was genuinely a threat to them, but I just went to a family gathering and they have adjusted to it and all is well.

        I don’t judge them for it, because I understand. I feel the same sense of “emotional pressure” when they discuss Keto or when they do the “Soy Police” process. It is an aggressive process of politically trying to sway people and trying to make them feel wrong or bad for not doing it their way. It alienates people at a high level.

        I am a Christian and I am going to say that the Christian community did so much damage and alienated so many people and it becomes harder to even just share at a human level, because people are so hostile to the concept of being judged.

      5. Joshua, I suppose it’s all depends on how one defines “vegan,” “honey” and the reasons why a person has adopted this diet in the first place. Honey is definitely plant based, but it is not a whole food, and it is also an animal product.
        Honey is over 99% sugars, carbohydrates and water:
        – If one is willing to overlook a few enzymes, honey is a tasty plant based sweetener made by bees.
        – If one’s goal is to eat WFBP, honey is a fiberless refined sugar, and as such is not an A list food.
        – If one is an ethical vegan, one avoids honey because its created from animal exploitation, although, if one took this to it’s logical extremes, ethical vegans would also avoid fruits that we pollinated using exploited honey bee labor so there’s that…

        1. There is a severe bee depopulation problem in the present due to pesticides and environmental destruction.
          Commercial hives in part serve as a agent which speaks for wild bees as well to limit pesticide use.And they do use produce more bees.

          I can’t eat it much at all it is unhealthy. But environmentally it is favored. Many plants depend upon bees existing. And we are close to that.
          So it is a decision one must make. But if harm is the thing…it then falls in the middle.

        2. Joe, no, that’s not that. It does not depend. Honey is in no way vegan and veganism is not a diet.

          Honey is also not plant based. While someone who is plant based might consume honey here and there, honey itself is not a plant based product. Honey is an animal product, it is literally the vomit of another animal. If a food is plant based that means it’s from plants, not from plants and then passed through animals.

          There is no such thing as an “ethical vegan.” The term vegan was created and defined as an ethical movement, it is simply being misused when people refer to it solely as a diet.
          The man who coined the term defined it as avoiding the use and exploitation of other animals by what is possible and practice so to say that bees pollinating plants technically makes them not vegan is not only insane, but fails to fall under the definition of vegan (moral, ethical, possible, practice).
          And bees flying about and naturally pollinating plant life is a far cry from stealing their honey and putting them through horrible things to do so. I reccomended watching the following for some insight on that:

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E0N8UYgMGDQ

          1. This is simply not true..”The term vegan was created and defined as an ethical movement, it is simply being misused when people refer to it solely as a diet.”

            Very many peoples participate in a vegan diet nowadays as a personal means to combat climate change. This overall fulfills the name of ethics or morality with animals as it prevents or seeks to prevent the wholescale extinction of animals by specie, which is upon us now with climate change…..

            That choice has in actuality a preference for less harm but is not as strict and applies less harm in a broader context.
            It still is the same choice for the same reason but broader in scope.

            1. From vegan chic…..”While the majority of vegans may choose a vegan lifestyle based on ethical commitment or moral convictions concerning animal rights, the environment is also a concern of a growing number of vegans.
              Environmental veganism is based on a system of beliefs that living a vegan lifestyle means consuming fewer resources and causing less environmental damage than an animal-based diet. Global warming and other environmental concerns are why environmental veganism is becoming a more desirable way of living. This is due to the fact that animal agriculture and factory farming is linked to climate change, water pollution, land degradation and a decline in biodiversity. Additionally, a vegan diet, the core basis of environmental veganism, requires the use of much less land, water and energy than a carnivorous diet. Global warming is just the beginning of the problems with mass animal production, too. Factory animal farming causes widespread pollution, and creates problems with deforestation. It also encourages species extinction as we remove natural animal habitats to make more room for mass production farms. “

              1. Leslie J. Cross actually had a large part in coining vegan and veganism, he was an even greater animal rights activist and took the whole picture of animal exploitation into consideration which of course was logically important to do.

            2. Incorrect ron, my statement was absolutely true. Donald Watson created and defined the term “vegan.” If someone decides to go vegan and the environment is their reason, that’s totally fine, but in order to call themselves a vegan, they actually have to be vegan i.e. they can’t eat an animal they deem “green” to eat every Monday or so and fall under the definition of vegan. It’s true that the disregard for other life and atrocities against them result in atrocities to the earth and to human health, it’s practically a provable karmic law at this point, so it’s true that to truly be “green” we need to be vegan, it’s true that to be in optimal health we need to be eating plants instead of animals, and it’s true that to truly be compassionate or just, we need to be vegan. That’s why veganism is such an awesome thing. It’s basically just a defining term to respect life and when we respect life everything else falls into place.

              1. Donald Watson..wrote this thing in the 1940’s words are not immovable objects they change as peoples change, it literally happens with nuance every day.

                Such strong strict definition serve only to drive many away from being vegan and why vegans are thought to be so restrictive and holier than thou….as exhibited here they feel free to define others as they see fit.

                No other define themselves as they see fit not as you see fit.

                1. Respecting all life and acting accordingly as we have both the capability and responsibility to do so is finite, it’s logic and it’s neccessary and we need a term to define it. Some words are not movable, if all things were, there’d be no meaning to anything, no accountability and it would be chaos. We should be evolved enough to not need a word for what should simply be but man is not so we do.

                  If others want to piss and moan over the simple logic of respecting other life within possibility and practicality and that there was and is a word designed for that, that is on them, not those they accuse of being “holier than thou” or making them feel bad because they’d personally like to redefine a very serious and meaningful term with victims at stake so they can call themselve a vegan.

                  If someone is not a vegan but makes efforts like YeahRight, for example, I think that is an amazing thing and I think they’re amazing for it. But if someone eats fish on occasion and honey for example, and call themselves a vegan, that I will comment on for reasons explained but I certainly still commend them for good that they do.

                  If you think respecting an important term simply makes me “holier than thou,” very well, have fun with that.

                2. What I am rejecting is a misread on the history of the term vegan..it was first created in reference to diet and then expanded to lifestyle in the mention of veganism, nothing suggests a vegan diet is not possible as a sole issue with variance of cause……

                  And to prevent us from becoming vegans what is described here.

                  From Dr Michael Greger…a person you may be familiar with..

                  ”Our position on honey therefore just doesn’t make any sense, and I think the general population knows this on an intuitive level. Veganism for them, then, becomes more about some quasi-religious personal purity, rather than about stopping animal abuse. No wonder veganism can seem nonsensical to the average person. We have this kind of magical thinking; we feel good about ourselves as if we’re actually helping the animals obsessing about where some trace ingredient comes from, when in fact it may have the opposite effect. We may be hurting animals by making veganism seem more like petty dogmatic self-flagellation. ”

                  So we may not be petty dogmatic and self-flagellating.

      6. Joshua, honey is NOT vegan, it comes from an animal and therefore is an animal product – not vegan. Moreover, honey is a product of exploitation of another animal which in and of itself makes it not a vegan product.

        1. Joshua posted a link that showed an article written by Dr. Greger back in 2005.

          Dr. G. wrote, “In my eyes, if we choose to avoid honey, fine. Let’s just not make a huge production of it and force everybody to do the same if they want to join the club.” In other words, let’s not sweat the small stuff.

          1. YeahRight, Dr. Greger was absolutely wrong (and like any mortal, is capable of being so) and that was thoroughly opinion based which holds zero relevance to the definitive term vegan nor does it hold any relevance to the fact that honey is a very cruel industry and kills large populations of bees annually in the name of profits.
            I couldn’t read the whole article because quite honestly, it was that offensive. It’s sickening to see anyone who would try to redefine something that was created before their own lifetime and rests on one simple logic, to not harm or use other animals by that which is possible and practical. I can only imagine that Dr. Greger hadn’t looked into what the honey industry actually consisted of before writing something he really didn’t have business writing. It’s certainly not small stuff and while I respect Dr. Greger for all the things he’s amazing at, he’s not an animal rights expert or an expert on all things animal-exploitation and vegan. Since bees suffer and have no voice, they need to be spoken for by those of us who can. It’s illogical, at best, to cherry-pick which animals deserve our mercy and compassion and which animals don’t. If you watch the video I linked above on the production of honey, you will realize what an unnecessary and cruel industry it actually is and why it is within the realms of possibility and practicality to avoid this particular cruelty and destruction and why then it is therefore in no way, vegan.

            The video I linked above and will do so again in this comment, is worth more than any opinion-based blog that even Dr. Greger may have wrote over a decade ago. Like I consider Dr. Greger to be one of the most well-reserached people on nutritional science, so do I consider Emily of Bite Sized vegan to be one of the most well-researched individuals on veganism and the industries that exploit animals.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0N8UYgMGDQ&app=desktop

            1. I should also point out that the only ones being forced to do anything, are the animals being kept, used, and killed as a means to obtain their products. Veganism isn’t about forcing anyone to do anything, quite literally the contrary. Speciesism gets in the way of empathy and logic in even some of the more intelligent humans.

            2. S, you probably meant to write “may have written” instead of “may have wrote.” :-) But, not to quibble….

              It’s known that Dr. G. will admit when he’s “wrong” about things. The bee article was written 13 years ago. TG, in the last video about organic meat (toward the end), said: ““Greger himself appears to favour a 100% vegetarian diet. ”

              Which means not a vegan one, yes?

              1. YeahRight, reaching to gramatical erros? Come on man, you’re better than that! ;)

                I know Dr. Greger has admitted to being wrong about some things in the past, again, I highly respect him and think he’s incredibly honest and genuine. I’m not putting him down, but I think he was very wrong in that case and think if he had an opinion on the matter that he wanted to share that he could have expressed it differently and in a better way. But 2005 was a long time ago… Less was known (from my perspective in the world) and things were a lot different. It just hit me how long ago it was and how different things were, I wasn’t even grown! lol.

                1. “YeahRight, reaching to gramatical erros? Come on man, you’re better than that! ;)”

                  I resent that…..I am NOT better than that! (Nor am I a man.) You should only know the “errors” I keep to myself. :-)

                  1. Dr Gregers statement on this which I agree with wholeheartedly. He is however not stating honey is vegan ;)

                    ….”Our position on honey therefore just doesn’t make any sense, and I think the general population knows this on an intuitive level. Veganism for them, then, becomes more about some quasi-religious personal purity, rather than about stopping animal abuse. No wonder veganism can seem nonsensical to the average person. We have this kind of magical thinking; we feel good about ourselves as if we’re actually helping the animals obsessing about where some trace ingredient comes from, when in fact it may have the opposite effect. We may be hurting animals by making veganism seem more like petty dogmatic self-flagellation. ”

                    Which to whit is exactly the thing displayed here on some of the posts, the notion of a absolute purity of this thing of veganism and how one has to qualify by some set standard to a extend arbitrarily based(dogma)to call oneself that that.

                    AS to dogma..I noticed on one of the vegan sites a exception for cosmetic use, one may look at animal products in them(but does not have to) and a strict consideration of other products…..a arbitrary standard as defined.
                    One to be vegan has to try their best to cause less harm, and a vegan diet may be exempt from veganism in lifestyle..some do it just for health.

                    1. Ron I didn’t read your comment, just caught the beginning, but uh… the article is literally titled “Why Honey Is Vegan” so…

    1. YeahRight

      Your morning gruel? I thought that they closed down all the workouses years ago.

      Sorry, but I haven’t heard of anybody eating gruel except in Charles Dickens’ novels. Perhaps I am feeling particularly silly today though. My first thought after reading Julie’s comment ‘I have a hunch ….’ was: so did Quasimodo but so what?

      1. Okay, my morning porridge? Cooked whole-grain steel-cut oats, to be more precise. Or millet, or kasha (buckwheat), or brown rice, or quinoa. My brother used to say I was eating from a pig’s trough. But that was then. Don’t eat that much anymore.

        1. Ah, OK. Yes, I eat porridge for breakfast too.

          Your broter is not alone in his views. Dr Johnson once famously dexcribed oats as ‘ A grain which in England is generally given to horses, but in Scotland supports the people.’

    1. Taylor,

      It might be that the blood sugar might be affected the same, since Monk Fruit is a fruit.

      However, Date Sugar has way more nutrition than sugar, if I remember the video properly.

  4. Hmm, seems a bit cherry-picking to hang the assumption that these sweeteners spike blood glucose more than sucrose based on just one study on 10 male subjects from Singapore. Not saying the study is invalid, but maybe more studies, or replications of this one, would better support the conclusions.

    1. A few days ago, Dr. Oz did a “show study” where he had people use sugar versus alternative sweeteners and the ones who took part said that they craved junk food much more when they used something other than sugar. The alternative sweeteners gave them a sweet tooth, where sugar took it away.

      It wasn’t a study.

      It was a discussion about why that would happen and Dr. Oz said that sugar sends signals to the brain that you just had sugar and you feel satiety for sweetness and that doesn’t happen with the alternative sweeteners. He didn’t test every alternative and I am messing up the science, because in my mind, I see the brain diagram, but I can’t remember the science explaining why the alternative sweeteners just give the sensation of wanting sweets without satisfying the craving.

      1. Okay, I just re-watched it.

        Basically, when you crave sugar and eat sugar, your brain registers the sugar and shuts off the craving mechanism.

        If you eat something else, your brain doesn’t sense the sugar and doesn’t shut off the craving mechanism, so people have a sense of a sweet tooth, even though they just ate something, which tasted sweet on the tongue.

        1. Ok..have you even seen a group of these people who do that thing….go to TV shows to see that thing and are prompted to applaud shout laugh by teleprompters…

          YOu must ask yourselves why they think the teleprompters are necessary? If they were in the least intelligent why would they have them? But they do not all, but most.
          If we human are as they are..I am sorry there is not a hope for us.

        1. Hi, Jen. I agree that this study is flawed, but it is all we have until better data are available. It does suggest that monkfruit extract is not necessarily better for glycemic response than sugar. What you do with the information is up to you, but I would recommend getting sweetness from whole fruit, and passing up the added sweeteners, in general. I hope that helps!

  5. This message is very important. The general population uses alternative sweeteners because they believe they are healthier, that they won’t put weight on, that they can drink diet stuff freely. But we are finding out this isn’t the case. And besides….should we really be using a processed additive in the first place!

  6. You can ‘retrain’ your taste buds. Quit using any kind of sweetener, and in about a month you won’t miss it.
    Haven’t used any for years. Berries satisfy for dessert, or some cacoa in morning coffee.

    1. That’s what retraining your taste buds means. I have friends who can’t believe I don’t eat processed meat or other foods. I just tell them that once my body got used to real food and was retrained, my body rejects that other stuff and hungers for WFPBD.

  7. In Dr. Gregers article about stevia,he didnt get the math straight.He said you could only use stevia safely in about two drinks a day. I checked on my bottle of stevia concentrate, and figuring the amount it takes to sweeten my tea,I could have 10-12 drinks per day,given the amt.rec.,that he showed per lb. body weight.!

  8. So, as usual, these studies are generally conducted on a human population that already leans in the direction of unhealthy habits, such as being addicted to sweets and eating too much at meals. My question is, if a group of healthy-minded individuals drank the monk fruit (or stevia), zero calorie, natural sweeteners, AND ALSO had enough self control to NOT OVEREAT (EAT MORE) AT THEIR NEXT MEAL, would they not be better off and have a lower sugar spike than someone who eats the natural sweetener BUT THEN OVEREATS at the next meal to compensate for the missing sugar high they typically get with their artificial and table sugar sweeteners AS WELL AS BEING MORE HEALTHY THAN the person who ate the artificial and/or table sugars originally and experienced BOTH a sugar high AND a caloric intake increase?

    1. There is such an article. Research group out of Israel. First tested on rats. Then tested on overweight people with diabetes. Then tested on healthy medical students. Same thing found in each case. I believe those are the articles mentioned in today’s video but I haven’t had a chance to review although I wrote a review on the topic for a class I was taking. And for those naysayers this is how research works. Rats, etc etc. time will probably prove this accurate. As always the people with the bad habits get most upset.

      As someone said above haven’t used these artificial sweetness ever. Why would you? Nasty stuff and tastes like a chemical.

    2. My question is, if a group of healthy-minded individuals drank the monk fruit (or stevia), zero calorie, natural sweeteners, AND ALSO had enough self control to NOT OVEREAT (EAT MORE) AT THEIR NEXT MEAL, would they not be better off and have a lower sugar spike than someone who eats the natural sweetener BUT THEN OVEREATS at the next meal to compensate for the missing sugar high they typically get with their artificial and table sugar sweeteners AS WELL AS BEING MORE HEALTHY THAN the person who ate the artificial and/or table sugars originally and experienced BOTH a sugar high AND a caloric intake increase?

      Maybe a sentence break would have been in order, but I agree with your statement. ‘-)

      1. So Lonie, you have asked a good question. There were a couple of videos that Dr Greger did at different times about specific foods having a positive blood sugar lowering effect at the next meal. If I am not mistaken, one was about the “second meal effect” of beans.. lowering blood sugar even at the next day’s breakfast ! And, there was another about berries, (including whole fruit jam) – maybe I can find it.

        I was thinking along the same lines as you. My meals are not outright runaways as a rule. I pretty much know what I am going to eat long in advance. Would the consumption then of the fruit derived sweetner raise my blood sugar to disproportionate heights following my modest meal? It is unclear to me what the specific effect would be.

  9. I don’t have a problem with it, though I use a stevia erythritol blend. Curiously by product label, this is advertised as a stevia product, when erythritol is the first or primary, stevia second.

    My drinks are rarely if ever singular. And they are so small a amount I just don’t worry about it. One does not have to dump a whole load of that thing to make anything sweet. And by singular I mean, I usually have a bit to eat as well with a sweetened product. Today it is breakfast smoothie a sweetner in my coffee and probably a bit of a tofu thing. So, what the spike from that tiny bit, in the whole thing…..none. Not a bit more than if I did not have it in there at all. The other things vastly overwhelm it in content.

    The notion I, like some sort of mindless robot, would drink a thing earlier and then just mindlessly eat more say for lunch….I would have to be a complete abject idiot to do things that way. I decide what I will have for lunch way prior to having any drink and always eat all of it. It is wasteful not to do such.
    Such studies and ways of things I think are tailored to some office environment that I do not engage but I suppose scientists do often. Going out for lunch I suppose.

    Even that…. how many do not bag their lunch? And then what…do they line up at a candy machine because they added a bit of sweetner to their coffee earlier and just do not notice they are doing that?
    I assume there are people who conduct themselves in that fashion but I certainly do not.
    I repeat, one would have to be a complete mindless idiot to not notice they are eating more and then to blame it on a sweetner they ate hours earlier….if they are doing such things they are likely big as houses anyway, and there is not much hope for less. The rest of their diet is likely fats and fries, because some fool told them it was healthy..

    I am mysterious compelled to eat that candy bar before lunch and will not notice I am doing so…absurd. If you are doing such things I think you really have to become more self aware. That is the problem, not the artificial sweetner.
    Will blithering idiots mindless gobble down anything that comes their way when a slight hunger feeling impels them to….. what it their body weight as opposed to normal people…may be a more worthy subject for study.,.

    1. To conclude….. any study which has this as behavior must have the study group for one reason or another, a group of mindless blithering idiots. We may care to look on how they picked peoples to be in the study….were they paid obtained from a likely source, the dollar store or a local flea market, I suspect they did not put a advert on the bulletin board of the local library for volunteers to obtain this group.

      1. And nothing against dollar stores nor flea markets…I shop both places on occasion.
        But I have noticed about 1 in 3 customers in such places do seem to have great difficulty chewing gum and walking in a straight line.
        So yes….they may gobble down anything in sight when hunger slightly motivates them to and seemingly by appearance, that happens with regularity….they must drink loads of artificial sweetners in between the buckets of fried chicken they swim in daily by my guess.
        For them these studies on sweetners must have great application.
        For the rest of us I suspect, thought admittedly I have not a shred of science to back this up with, this is all based on my own experience and that of my families… that be not so much a problem .

    2. “Will blithering idiots mindless gobble down anything that comes their way when a slight hunger feeling impels them to…”

      I have several acquaintances who do just that. At a restaurant, for instance, they’ll stuff themselves with bread and other appetizers *burp* that have placed on the table. I could never understand this. I’d rather save some belly room (and calories) for the main course.

      1. Well I firmly hope they be distant acquaintances ;)

        Peoples scarfing down the diet sodas are like as not, clinging at a straw in a storm thinking it will keep them afloat. Really they cannot control in the slightest so they do that….

        Then go figure..new study shows peoples who drink diet soda are fatter than the rest….
        Noticing really a lot people walking around sipping on this or that with a quart size jug in their hands and a straw are probably sipping a diet drink…..but the problem is clearly they cannot keep their belly less than full with a thing for even a minute.

        The content in the drink may as well be water but is speaks of a bigger different problem…they cannot stop putting into their mouths things. Does it serve to reinforce that…..walking around in such a manner…I think so. Then they eat more..again go figure.
        Does that relate to us, most of us..not really.

        1. I could never eat on the street or in public areas. Just looks gross, IMO. You see it even on buses. So many people feel the need to stick something in their mouths (oral fixations?). It seems none of them are skinny., either. Quite the opposite. I know nothing about diabetes, but could it be they’re diabetic and have to refuel every so often?

          “The gum-chewing girl and the cud-chewing cow
          Seem somewhat alike, but different, somehow.
          Ah, yes! There it is! I see it all now!
          It’s the thoughtful look on the face of the cow.””

          1. Well only a unmanaged diabetic should show that tendency. There are quite a few in the US In part due to the health care system. Increased food and drink are typical unmanaged.
            Managed it should not be.
            Full blown diabetics must monitor food intake to insulin taken. Usually the downside is if they forget to eat and take the insulin…they go into insulin shock which produces in some abberant behaviors such as aggression. One must fight them then to get them to take the glucose by IV or mouth.
            Eventually they go comatose and it is a terminal event. To little sugar in the blood.

            Which is the opposite of diabetic coma, to much sugar in the blood ketoacidosis and electrolyte imbalances and death from that cause. They cannot utilize the sugar and it builds up, usually fats then predominate to exclusion of carbs. But in many cases it goes along undetected and with only moderate impairment. And that takes quite a while to progress. Insulin shock can be a matter of hours.

            So it does depend on type and extend.

        2. ‘new study shows peoples who drink diet soda are fatter than the rest’

          Yes but perhaps they drink diet soda because they are fatter.

    1. Those oranges don’t fit into my morning cup of coffee so well Joe. And juice then is processed and likely not so healthy.

      I should not drink coffee…there are things to recommend it. Some speak to the adverse, but I guess it depends upon what is its application and who is the subject of that.
      Unsweetened coffee…..guess I could adapt to that but the question is why?

      Aside the fact this does speak of other sweetener Dr Greger has approved of in the past, erythritol.

      I have considered becoming a monk but rejected that about 10 or so years prior.

      1. ron, you wrote: “Unsweetened coffee…..guess I could adapt to that but the question is why?” Because a freshly brewed cup of good coffee is almost divine!! And I LOVE my AeroPress coffee maker, which brews coffee with less acid in it than do drip coffee makers. I use it to make fresh brewed ice coffee in the sumer months (and hot coffee the rest of the year).

        Plus, I just read this: “The undiluted [health] benefits apply to coffee taken unsweetened and black….No sugar, no cream…Basically, the more you add to your black coffee, the less ‘good’ it becomes.” https://greenbeanery.ca/blogs/news/78391430-is-coffee-a-health-drink

        1. Well doc I use hibiscus tea as my base instead of water so……
          Almond milk for the milk part(which adds calcium to it) and a bit of sweetener.

          Add it all together is it less good…I’d say about in the middle but really no study to show that. I habituated to coffee from age 7 or so. Have dropped it for years at a time really, but the cognitive benefit outweigh possible harm in my specific.

          Historical buddhism(though I am not formally buddhist) considered caffeine allowable as a adjunct to meditative practice.
          For reason that.

          1. I would never use sugar as a sweetener nor maple syrup nor honey as sugars have been show to increase inflammatory effect.
            As to taste, hate the taste of black coffee….and the temperature…if I ever go to a coffee place I have to add ice to cool it down..
            I find no study on the negative effect of a almond milk(no sugar version) with a E or S sweetener.
            Particularly if one uses a other base or hibiscus or green tea perhaps. .

            Typical by my read… a normal American way of thing is studied by my guess. Milk sugar…sure negative.
            Like protein in study….animal protein is thrown in the mix and that are generally the tested protein meat or dairy source, as that is the American way.
            In other than a contaminate source protein study in which they do focus on plant protein likely.

        2. Amen to that, Dr. J. I’ve never taken my coffee any way other than black. It’s healthier (and tastier IMO) with nothing at all added.

          1. “It’s healthier (and tastier IMO) with nothing at all added.”

            Prove that statement as I describe or define it. WE know milk and sugar make it unhealthy.

              1. Poor Edgar his popularity has been in slow decline…noticing the lack of comments ;)

                Invariably the studies are on milk or cream and sugar which we can reasonably assume are bad for us and will show in study that.

                Almond milk with no sugar in it, hibiscus tea as water, S or E as sweetener…we can only fathom. My guess is benefit, but I admit it a guess.

                1. I can’t imagine that unsweetened almond milk would be bad for coffee. In fact, it should be good. Fat improves absorption of nutrients, including polyphenols. That’s why many of us use a nut based dressing on our salads.

        3. I do like some cardamom and cinnamon, sometimes cacoa in my coffee though. Sometimes so add 1/4 tsp. of turmeric also.
          My kids do turn their nose up though. :-)

          1. Black tea with cardamon and/or cinnamon is pretty good too. Persian teas or chais made with these and other spices can be delicious and are presumably healthy.

          1. I use the filter thing as well. But being incredibly cheap I do tend to reuse the filters wash them out but they remain far from clean.
            So I wonder if the effect remains?
            Ah the worries of a great mind ;)

              1. Thanks TG.

                I wonder how significant that is if you only drink coffee on rare occasion. And I wonder how significant a rise it would be if someone drank it daily. Makes me rethink the French press but on the other hand, I thought I remembered a video or article on here pointing out that there might be more antioxidants in less filtered coffee… obviously there’s plenty of antioxidant sources that don’t have any negative impact on cholesterol but I’m just trying to decide if I should avoid the French press even on rare occasion…

  10. I have type 1 diabetes, am on a continuous glucose monitor, and use a little stevia in my morning tea. Because of the CGM, I have the ability to constantly monitor my blood glucose level, and can unequivocally say that stevia does not raise my blood sugar.

    1. Mostlyvegan,

      Yes, it doesn’t raise blood sugar right away.

      This video acknowledges that.

      I don’t know if you are disciplined enough that you don’t eat more the next meal.

      To know if you were having the “meal after” effect, you would have to not do the Stevia every once in a while and then check after the next meal to see if there was a difference.

      1. Have done that, I don’t use stevia everyday. No spikes, but I do not overeat at the next meal. I was diagnosed in an era when we used to have to weigh every bit of food that went into our mouths (over 50 years ago), so I am extremely disciplined about what I eat.

    2. Mostlyvegan, did you ever check for a spike at your next meal? That would be interesting.

      Also I’m compelled to get off track a bit and mention that there’s no such thing as being “mostly vegan” because veganism isn’t a diet it’s a moral/ethical way of life. Annoying I’m sure but I had to say it.

      1. Yes, no spikes.

        Haha, it was a shorter moniker that “Mostlyplantbased”. I eat a plant based diet about 99% of the time.

        1. Lol well thanks for not getting too annoyed. That’s interesting info, and I wonder if it’s because this study had no control as people pointed out in the beginning of the comments – no plain water group. So it doesn’t seem all that conclusive on anything.

        2. Now I’m curious. (It sounds like my diet.) What consists of the 1% in your case? If you’re afraid of getting attacked, just ignore the question. :-)

              1. YeahRight, could only be one of two which is why I asked… You may have been referring to how sometimes you might get a mini lecture on why something someone says they consume a little of isn’t healthy on this site (though hardly ever and no big deal). Or you may have been implying she’d get “attacked” for not being 100% plant based all the time in which case that never seems to happen here and in the earlier conversation where you seemed to think you got attacked by mysrn, it didn’t seem that way at all to me and I’d like to point out no one was attacked for saying they ate an animal product at all, debate simply arose over Joshua’s controversial statement. So I didn’t think your insinuation of someone being “attacked” for either of those reasons was actually fair to anyone here.

          1. YeahRight, I don’t keep any animal based foods in my house, but will occasionally eat something if I am out. I usually have a little bit of turkey on Thanksgiving. I had some scrambled eggs a couple of months ago when I went out with a friend for breakfast. It’s so infrequent, I don’t let myself stress over it. That would probably be more harmful that eating eggs 2-3 times a year!

      2. that there’s no such thing as being “mostly vegan” because veganism isn’t a diet it’s a moral/ethical way of life. Annoying I’m sure but I had to say it.”

        By what authority do you define veganism for all vegans?

        Peoples want to be called what they want to be called and in a progressive sense we should not stand in the way of that excepting great cause.
        People can be vegan in diet and are many millions. That may be veganism for them. Words change as per use. The idea someone who invented a word and we must abscribe to that as final and ultimate arbitrator speaks not to a understanding of language itself and why most all words have multiple meanings.

        Producing a word from a dictionary or a source like PETA or other, little fits the reality of veganism as it is a new rapidly evolving thing with a much greater constituency then even five years ago.

        Peoples say they are mostly vegan in diet and in moral consideration every day all day. Those who say they like to ride a horse may say I am mostly vegan(meaning in action) but do ride a horse. Peoples may say they are mostly vegan in diet(in action) but do consume honey for instance.
        So there certainly a reason and allowance to say that thing.

        1. Omg Ron, seriously, we’ve been over this and this discussion is already going on up above, why must the comments board be blown up with repetition?? It may be heated but let’s some etiquette. So I will only briefly respond to to this and would refrain if I weren’t compelled to say something over the fact that victims are involved… If people called themselves frogs it wouldn’t make them frogs; if I punch strangers in the face and call myself nice, it doesn’t make me nice. Vegan is not a personal philosophical term, it is one with a clear definition first created by Donald Watson and completed by Leslie Cross, leaders of The Vegan Society from the start of The Vegan Society. But we have this conversation going up above which I think won’t have an end so even that we should probably just let it die down.

          1. Well let it lie down..please stop telling people what it is to be vegan you have no special qualification in that regard.
            And if someone wants to say they are mostly vegan or part vegan or vegan in diet or environmentalist vegan or any other type of vegan ….let them say what they want and call themselves what they desire.

            This is easily put to rest..just stop telling us (yes I am one) what you say we have to do. Do what you want call yourself this or that it is not my business.

            1. Etiquette???
              You say this to a person who has named themselves mostly vegan….how about not being rude?

              “Also I’m compelled to get off track a bit and mention that there’s no such thing as being “mostly vegan” because veganism isn’t a diet it’s a moral/ethical way of life. Annoying I’m sure but I had to say it.”

              No you did not have to say it in fact it was quite rude. What someone calls themselves is their business not ours nor yours. And then peoples wonder why vegans get so much bad press.

        2. i disagree Ron. S is correct.

          Vegans are people who don’t use any animal products in their life for ethical reasons. No leather belts, no woollen pullovers etc
          https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism

          Yes vegans eat a 100% vegetarian diet but not everybody who eats a 100% vegetarian diet is a vegan, no matter what they call themselves. In fact, I’d guess that only a small minority of people who eat a 100% vegetarian diet are truly vegans. Sure, there is a difference between the common usage of words and the correct usage of words. But that’s why there is so much confusion on so many things. Ignorance is not something we should respect or condone.

          1. Really definition of veganism from the most reflective of the current Wikipedia..
            ” Veganism is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet, and an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals. A follower of either the diet or the philosophy is known as a vegan. Distinctions are sometimes made between several categories of veganism. Dietary vegans refrain from consuming animal products, not only meat but also eggs, dairy products and other animal-derived substances. The term ethical vegan is often applied to those who not only follow a vegan diet but extend the philosophy into other areas of their lives, and oppose the use of animals for any purpose. Another term is environmental veganism, which refers to the avoidance of animal products on the premise that the industrial farming of animals is environmentally damaging and unsustainable.”

            Many have various rationals and agenda’s to coopt the term…this is veganism currently. It has much variance.
            And my point is never it has to be this or that…. my point is exactly one calls themselves what they want.
            This was entered into on s stating someones name was in error…. …..” there’s no such thing as being “mostly vegan” because veganism isn’t a diet it’s a moral/ethical way of life. Annoying I’m sure but I had to say it.”
            Mostly vegan was her name used on this thread.

            So in this Tom…you are wrong.

            1. Wikipedia in this does a pretty good study. It references its starting as vegetarianism in India 8000 or so years ago at about the same time as the fundamental Hindu text by my read.
              And goes on from there. I in fact only mention several of the types of veganism that exist. There is even a feminist veganism. The idea it was so constricted to my sway held general opinion back around 2010 or so. Since then with the multitude of new vegans it has simply greatly expanded. AS it has to do to meet the great increase.

              I recommend you read it.

              1. From on thought….
                “What is Veganism?
                Contrary to what some people think, veganism is not about being absolutely 100 per cent pure and free of animal products. Veganism is about minimizing our harm to other animals and avoiding animal products as much as possible. What does this mean? Vegan blogger Mylene of My Face is on Fire writes:

                Is it possible in this overwhelmingly speciesist world to live a life that is 100% free of the use of animal products? Of course not. Does this mean that it’s OK to sneak in the occasional chicken wing for kicks and still call yourself a vegan? Again, of course not. But veganism is a lifestyle that’s the hands-on application of an ethical framework where every single day you need to inform yourself so that you can assess situations and make the proper choices.”

                Speaking of informing myself, if one does buy a car likely if the brake fluid is not synthetic, is contains a animal fat derivative. Your tires probably contain steric acid a animal derivative. And your paints and binders contain animal products as well. The road you drive on likely contains asphalt combined with animal product to make it adhere better and on and on.
                One does the best one can. A very poor person a vagrant may have no choice in shoes but what a shelter gives them. In prison one may have to eat the slop they give one or starve or force fed…are such peoples then not vegan…no they may be doing all they can in difficult circumstances.

                A absolutist view on this thing is always in error. Try to define it in this specific way or that and a other appears, a circumstance which may make one appear not vegan but be vegan. The key is always to do what one can.
                AS a result it would be perfectly appropriate to say I am mostly vegan or nearly vegan or any number of things that approximate that.

                I can produce literally scores of things which attest to this from a search.

                1. A little gender bias here as I read it….. so strict in some regard but in others…oh well seems not to matter so much……from the American vegan society..
                  “Veganism also excludes animal products such as leather, wool, fur, and silk in clothing, upholstery, etc. Vegans usually make efforts to avoid the less-than-obvious animal oils, secretions, etc., in many products such as soaps, cosmetics, toiletries, household goods and other common commodities. ”

                  Strict interpretation of veganism leads to discovery of such things. It is not hopeless only if we consider it to be we all do what we can.
                  Some I think want it to be hopeless and favor such interpretation as they want to hold it to a standard so high only they can reach(bolstering their ego), or others may want to devolve it completely by making it seem impossible for reasons of antivegan agenda..

                  In any event it is simply not true and truthfully more are tending to go this way as most know this…you do only what you can, it is not in the specific of any one thing.Circumstance can throw that one thing out the door.

                  All your meds for instance in the UK Tom…they are animal tested. A requirement of law. One can be vegan even if one takes them as we ourselves are animal and must protect ourselves from harm as well.

              2. Sorry Ron but I disagreee.

                I am pretty sure that whatever Sanskrit word was used and is now translated as ‘vegetaran’ doesn’t actually mean vegetarian.

                The word vegetarian is clearly cognate with and derived from ‘vegetable’. Vegetarians eat a diet of vegetables just as fruitarians eat a diet of fruit.

                What a vegetable is, is clear from the Linnaean taxonomy of “animal, vegetable or mineral” . Unfortunately ignorance corrupts the language and people now appear to think that ‘vegetable’ only refers to leafy and root vegetables. That’s faulty thinking and ignorance.

                Beacuse vegetarians don’t eat meat, most people also appear to think that everyone who doesn’t eat meat is a vegetarian. Just as they think that because vegans eat a (totally) vegetarian diet then a (totally) vegetarian diet is a’vegan’ diet. There is no such thing as a ‘vegan’ diet in actuality. It;s just a (totally) vegetarian diet.

                1. Disagree with what..me or Wikipedia?

                  You are saying a lot there but really I don’t see it translate to what I have stated. So please expound on how this relates to my points.
                  If you mean Wikipedia…I don’t know if I will respond to a specific of all their content displayed. I guess it would depend on the specific on how important it was to point.

                  1. As to this…” There is no such thing as a ‘vegan’ diet in actuality. It;s just a (totally) vegetarian diet.”

                    This is a absurd contention. I can find reference to vegan in diet just about anywhere and about any here with the exception of yourself and perhaps s can as well.
                    I have already supplied supporting evidence to show that..do you want more?

                    1. Here is one of many hundred…
                      Health . com

                      “Switching to a vegan diet? Here’s what you need to know before making the change. “

                    2. And another medical news…
                      “Vegan vs. vegetarian
                      There are important differences between the vegan and vegetarian diets that impact food choice and nutritional intake.
                      The main difference is that vegetarians do not eat meat but will continue to consume dairy products and eggs. Vegans consume no animal produce at all.”

                      Good luck with that point. This term vegan diet is simple and widely used and known of. To imply a more technical and or esoteric definition is available, I would agree. But this does not serve in todays world time and place to use that as opposed to this described in multiple forms here.

                      ATheism once refered only to a contrary opinion to the church of England 400 or so years ago when it was coined. Words change and the term now applies to any non belief in the supernatural or god or any number of things. Words change and expand in meaning,.

                      No one will follow your point with the exception of s here. It is just so easily seen a ruse.

                    3. Vegan diet dictionary source…
                      “vegan diet consists totally of vegetables, vegetable oils and seeds, excluding all foods of animal origin – meat, fish and dairy foods, and also honey. Vegans need to make sure that they are getting enough protein and micronutrients such as iron and vitamin B12.
                      Dictionary of Sport and Exercise Science and Medicine by Churchill Livingstone © 2008 Elsevier Limited. All rights reserved.
                      vegan diet (vē´gən),

                    4. Dieting FAQ..”:What Is a Vegan Diet and How to Cut Out Any Kinds of Meat or Animal Products Out of Your Diet”

                    5. From the Vegan society history..

                      “The first modern-day vegans
                      In November 1944, Donald Watson (right and below) called a meeting with five other non-dairy vegetarians, including Elsie Shrigley, to discuss non-dairy vegetarian diets and lifestyles. Though many held similar views at the time, these six pioneers were the first to actively found a new movement – despite opposition. The group felt a new word was required to describe them; something more concise than ‘non-dairy vegetarians’. Rejected words included ‘dairyban’, ‘vitan’, and ‘benevore’. They settled on ‘vegan’, a word that Donald Watson later described as containing the first three and last two letters of ‘vegetarian’. In the words of Donald Watson, it marked “the beginning and end of vegetarian.” The word vegan was coined by Donald Watson from a suggestion by early members Mr G, A Henderson and his wife Fay K. Henderson that the society should be called Allvega and the magazine Allvegan.
                      Although the vegan diet was defined early on it was as late as 1949 before Leslie J Cross pointed out that the society lacked a definition of veganism and he suggested “[t]he principle of the emancipation of animals from exploitation by man”.

                    6. Which reaffirms my contention. Vegan diet and veganism are identified as two separate but existant things.
                      And the term vegan was in reference to a difference or in opposition to conventional vegetarianism of the day.

                    7. Ron

                      You can also find plenty of references to the four corners of the earth, Santa Claus, ether, phlogiston, the Tooth Fairy and various gods. It doesn’t mean they or references to a ”vegan diet’ have any actual validity..

                    8. Your statement makes no logical sense.
                      It is clear from the vegan societies historical notation(yes that is the group the founder started) the term vegan was coined in reference to diet and the term veganism was a five year later addition to describe lifestyle.

                      Not the term vegan diet in the paragraph being defined early on….

                      “n November 1944, Donald Watson (right and below) called a meeting with five other non-dairy vegetarians, including Elsie Shrigley, to discuss non-dairy vegetarian diets and lifestyles. Though many held similar views at the time, these six pioneers were the first to actively found a new movement – despite opposition. The group felt a new word was required to describe them; something more concise than ‘non-dairy vegetarians’. Rejected words included ‘dairyban’, ‘vitan’, and ‘benevore’. They settled on ‘vegan’, a word that Donald Watson later described as containing the first three and last two letters of ‘vegetarian’. In the words of Donald Watson, it marked “the beginning and end of vegetarian.” The word vegan was coined by Donald Watson from a suggestion by early members Mr G, A Henderson and his wife Fay K. Henderson that the society should be called Allvega and the magazine Allvegan.
                      Although the vegan diet was defined early on it was as late as 1949 before Leslie J Cross pointed out that the society lacked a definition of veganism and he suggested “[t]he principle of the emancipation of animals from exploitation by man”.

                      At this point don’t know what to say it is clearly stated.

                      As I explained earlier….. on the term itself, it has been expanded to include environmental veganism ethical veganism and a number of other things.
                      It is common for a thing of popularity to expand is such a fashion.

                    9. In even more succient fashion here are the meat and bones of the paragraph as it relates to vegan diet being a acceptable and defined term..
                      “Although the vegan diet was defined early on it was as late as 1949 before Leslie J Cross pointed out that the society lacked a definition of veganism and he suggested “[t]he principle of the emancipation of animals from exploitation by man”.

                      To add of course, the whole field of endeavor has greatly expanded since that time, but nothing in this expansion hints of a deletion of the idea one may be vegan in diet.

                    10. And I concur entirely with Dr Gregers point made in this article linked by Josh way back in the day…

                      “Our position on honey therefore just doesn’t make any sense, and I think the general population knows this on an intuitive level. Veganism for them, then, becomes more about some quasi-religious personal purity, rather than about stopping animal abuse. No wonder veganism can seem nonsensical to the average person. We have this kind of magical thinking; we feel good about ourselves as if we’re actually helping the animals obsessing about where some trace ingredient comes from, when in fact it may have the opposite effect. We may be hurting animals by making veganism seem more like petty dogmatic self-flagellation. ”

                      It little serves this vegan thing to be pointing fingers at one another and saying you are not vegan or are vegan based upon some set standard.
                      What a person calls themselves is a personal decision.

                2. Tom, I agree. I think the confusion lies in faulty or sloppy usage of logic, starting with the premise all A = B & then trying to flip it around. People do it all the time, and it causes confusion, the language gets corrupted, illusions are created, etc., etc.

                  I’ll give another example that’s more clear: All mothers are women. If you try to flip it around, it doesn’t work.
                  By the same token, all vegans don’t eat animal products. But all those who don’t eat animal products are not vegans. I don’t eat animal products, but I’m not a vegan as I sit here typing this in my leather shoes, with my leather bag hanging off my chair.

                  1. Ron, the Vegan Society currently defines veganism as “A philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment.”

                    Food is just one component of many in vegan philosophy & way of living. Just because I follow one component doesn’t make me a vegan. And that one component, while similar, is not the same. Most vegans I know eat a lot of things I never would, such as processed junk food.

                    1. Ron, even on their website they say it’s not just about diet:

                      “It’s not just about diet
                      Vegans avoid exploiting animals for any purpose, with compassion being a key reason many choose a vegan lifestyle. From accessories and clothing to makeup and bathroom items, animal products and products tested on animals are found in more places than you might expect. Fortunately nowadays there are affordable and easily-sourced alternatives to just about everything. With over 22,000 products and services registered with our Vegan Trademark alone, living a vegan lifestyle has never been easier. Browse online today.”

                      And they go to mention “other aspects of vegan living”, such as medicine, medical charities & entertainment.

                      Since this is where veganism started & continues to exist, I think they’re probably the best authority on what veganism is.

                    2. Nancy the vegan society clearly states the term vegan was coined in reference to diet…I have already posted that from their site. Veganism is addressing it as to a greater scope. The term vegetarian did not really suffice.

                      I think Dr Gregers own words spoken on honey speak to this as well..

                      ”Our position on honey therefore just doesn’t make any sense, and I think the general population knows this on an intuitive level. Veganism for them, then, becomes more about some quasi-religious personal purity, rather than about stopping animal abuse. No wonder veganism can seem nonsensical to the average person. We have this kind of magical thinking; we feel good about ourselves as if we’re actually helping the animals obsessing about where some trace ingredient comes from, when in fact it may have the opposite effect. We may be hurting animals by making veganism seem more like petty dogmatic self-flagellation. ”

                      We must exert caution to not be telling others what they have to be in this thing, they self decide in this thing.
                      A eater of meat on wed friday but not the rest of the week no that person is not vegan in diet. A person who wears shoes of leather that person may be vegan in diet if they eat not meat dairy and eggs or fish, and it is a legitimate term as I showed it.
                      This thing started as diet expanded to lifestyle and now expands with nuance to include why one chooses the diet, environment health or whaever.

                      So no you Tom and S are totally firmly completely wrong in this. Sorry you may be right in other things not this.

                      To repeat here is the vegan societies statement on the evolution of vegan and veganism as differing issues…..you can not self make this history it occurred..
                      ” November 1944, Donald Watson (right and below) called a meeting with five other non-dairy vegetarians, including Elsie Shrigley, to discuss non-dairy vegetarian diets and lifestyles. Though many held similar views at the time, these six pioneers were the first to actively found a new movement – despite opposition. The group felt a new word was required to describe them; something more concise than ‘non-dairy vegetarians’. Rejected words included ‘dairyban’, ‘vitan’, and ‘benevore’. They settled on ‘vegan’, a word that Donald Watson later described as containing the first three and last two letters of ‘vegetarian’. In the words of Donald Watson, it marked “the beginning and end of vegetarian.” The word vegan was coined by Donald Watson from a suggestion by early members Mr G, A Henderson and his wife Fay K. Henderson that the society should be called Allvega and the magazine Allvegan.
                      Although the vegan diet was defined early on it was as late as 1949 before Leslie J Cross pointed out that the society lacked a definition of veganism and he suggested “[t]he principle of the emancipation of animals from exploitation by man”.

                    3. So Ron, you just deliberately ignore the fact that the Vegan Society says right on their website that it’s not just about diet. And the fact that the 6 original people who founded the whole movement called a meeting “to discuss non-dairy vegetarian diets and lifestyles. AND LIFESTYLES. Being vegan is not just about diet. You can say that it is all you want, but it doesn’t make it true. You can change your name to Mostlyvegan, and it still doesn’t make it true. Not according to the organization that founded the movement and coined the term vegan.

                  2. Thanks Nancy. I eat a 100% vegetable diet and I don’t regard myself as a vegan either.

                    The point I was trying to make to Ron was that whatever certain individuals say now or said in the past, it is clear that word ‘vegetarin’ means people whose diet is vegetables (ie edible plants). Just because many people now think for some reason that it means ‘not eating meat’ doesn’t change that. After all, the word itself is a pretty big giveaway.and it’s hard to understand how people can think that it means anything but simply eating vegetables.

                    Certainly the people who coined the term ‘vegetarian’ were apparently quite clear that it means a purely vegetable diet – see eg esecially age 12
                    https://ivu.org/history/Vegan_History.pdf

                    1. This is clearly refuted by this from the vegan societies history stated on their site…”The group felt a new word was required to describe them; something more concise than ‘non-dairy vegetarians’.

                      It was created in response to a diet…vegetarian diet. Five years later it was expanded to include lifestyle and the term veganism was used for that.

                      “Although the vegan diet was defined early on it was as late as 1949 before Leslie J Cross pointed out that the society lacked a definition of veganism and he suggested “[t]he principle of the emancipation of animals from exploitation by man”.

                    2. Thanks, Tom. I like the question & answer at the end:
                      “Will all vegetarians eventually be vegan? We have no way of knowing, but the continuing trend seems inevitable.”

                    3. Peoples endeavor a vegan diet for very many reasons global warming being probably predominant now.
                      Those who endeavor it for health..they will all quickly jump off the boat the minute it becomes apparent any meat dairy or fish or egg items are found to have a neutral or positive affect.

                      Jains and Hindus, some Buddhists very many peoples endeavor vegetarianism and they exceed by far in number any amounts of vegans or vegetarians found in the west. How we can estimate they will become vegan is by my read not a well thought thing….. as they depend upon religious tradition of a few thousand years in their current determination.

                    4. And Nancy the essential point is this..in todays world this world people self define themselves.
                      If obvious lying is involved, as some you tuber is claiming vegan, and found eating hot dogs, of course we may draw exception.

                      If someone thinks they may be vegan in diet, the vegan society cannot out rule nor outlaw that, as many millions do that and define themselves in that way..
                      If they continue to think that they may…they will just be left behind in the dust bin of history, A part of it but no longer relevant.

                      And this in fact references Dr Gregers thinking of the idea of not being to strict on the issue, shown here speaking about honey..

                      ” ”Our position on honey therefore just doesn’t make any sense, and I think the general population knows this on an intuitive level. Veganism for them, then, becomes more about some quasi-religious personal purity, rather than about stopping animal abuse. No wonder veganism can seem nonsensical to the average person. We have this kind of magical thinking; we feel good about ourselves as if we’re actually helping the animals obsessing about where some trace ingredient comes from, when in fact it may have the opposite effect. We may be hurting animals by making veganism seem more like petty dogmatic self-flagellation. ”

                    5. I am wondering at this point why the WFPB crowd is so adamant about veganism and vegan in diet being so strictly defined?

                      If they are not that thing vegan, which I call myself even though I have never checked the vegan society to see if I fit into their definition(why should I care), it seems not their issue.

                      Is the vegan crowd then being attempted to be defined by the WFPN crowd…seems so in part at least.
                      In light of this, I now may call myself at times…..mostly vegan ron in new Mexico…as I know all my grains do indeed have a bug or two killed in harvest, and it seems the vegan society and some peoples here on this board may object. .
                      Or I may wear a old leather jacket from 40 years ago or I may have a leather belt or this or that from some past time

                      Others say I guess I may not call myself mostly vegan ron in New Mexico…I suppose.
                      I say tell that to Cassius Clay, once told his other name must not be used as it was not what we think it should be…..he was told that thing many years ago. I will call him his Christian name I recall from some footage it said by announcer(no offense to Christians I think he was mistaken) I thought we as a society had learned a lesson, a progressive one…..a person calls themselves as they determine not others…

                      In the same vein I say I am vegan, I am doing what I can and no more is required of vegan ever…then to do what one can to prevent harm if lifestyle is the thing or one is a ethical vegan…..though for this I now say mostly vegan….yes years of life considered I did once eat meat….so my lifetime considered I am always mostly vegan.

                      Did anyone ever depend upon the vegan society to certify themselves as vegan..I suppose once they did…that time it is not now….which is in part why there are so many of us vegan now..when once we were so few…….

                      A thing I am very glad off….

                    6. And Nancy…this particular conversation was joined because of this statement made, if you have not followed it..

                      “Also I’m compelled to get off track a bit and mention that there’s no such thing as being “mostly vegan” because veganism isn’t a diet it’s a moral/ethical way of life. Annoying I’m sure but I had to say it.”

                      That was made to a person who calls themselves mostly vegan.
                      Which about says it all. In the oft event you missed that.

          2. “Sure, there is a difference between the common usage of words and the correct usage of words. But that’s why there is so much confusion on so many things. Ignorance is not something we should respect or condone.”

            Brilliantly put.

            1. Common usage becomes correct usage in language always if it persists. There is no other view on that..it simply is as language is.

              Excepting a time and place (ancient india perhaps) when monarchy decided by rule what words were, how they were written, and expressed…but that type of world no longer or did not ever exist in total.
              Sanskrit by its ordered structure speaks of a authoritarian influence. English has no such order of the same magnitude.

        3. I agree, well said. Vegan can be used to distinguish between someone wdietho is eating 90% plants and 100% plants. The original definition of vegan was diet focused. Dr. Watson invented the term and he was focused on diet.

  11. IS 100% GRASS FED BEEF LESS CARCINOGENIC
    THAN ORGANIC BEEF?

    Probably (but it has to be cooked at low temperatures)

    100% Grass Fed Beef ccontains up to 3 times more Conjugated Linoleic Acid (CLA)
    than beef fed with corn and/or wheat.

    CLA is thought to help prevent cancer.

    One can feed cows with feed made with organic corn/wheat and call the meat organic,
    even though corn and wheat is UNhealthy for cows.

    Beef from 100% Grass Fed Cows contains much higher amounts of other nutrients such
    as BetaCarotine, Omega 3, Vitamin E etc than cows fed with corn/wheat.

    It is probably safe to say that healthy animals handle pollutants better than
    unhealthy animals.

    But there is no question that Homo Sapiens has poisoned the entire planet and
    those pollutants fall on grass just as much as they fall on beans, rice and honey.

    1. Sydney

      There is not much, if any, evidence that dietary CLA fights cancer.eg

      ‘RESULTS:
      During a mean follow-up of 17.4 y, 2952 incident cases of breast cancer were ascertained. In multivariate analyses, no significant association was observed between dietary CLA intake and risk of breast cancer, overall or by estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) status. The multivariate relative risks (95% CI) for the highest quintile of CLA intake (> or =155.7 mg/d) compared with the lowest quintile (<78.1 mg/d) were 1.04 (0.92, 1.17) for overall breast cancer, 1.09 (0.90, 1.31) for ER+/PR+ tumors, 1.09 (0.78, 1.53) for ER+/PR- tumors, and 0.84 (0.57, 1.24) for ER-/PR- tumors.

      CONCLUSION:
      The results provide no evidence of a protective effect of CLA against breast cancer development in women.'
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19491389

      All the beef in Uruguay is grass-fed, yet the more beef Uruguayans eat, the higher their cancer rates
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19491389
      http://journal.waocp.org/?sid=Entrez:PubMed&id=pmid:19640186&key=2009.10.3.429

      People who claim that grass-fed beef is safe or healthy are ignoring the evidence and basing their claims on lengthy (and possibly spurious) chains of reasoning.

      While you may be right that it may be less carcinogenic than 'conventional' beef, I don't think that this has ever been studied. So this is just speculation at this stage.

  12. So interesting info, but he didn’t answer the question on whether or not monk fruit is safe. It’s in the title of the video, and yet it’s not addressed.

  13. I don’t really use sugar at all, but if I had Cancer, I might be doing Monk Fruit and if I had Diabetes, I would be doing 1 spoonful of sugar.

    The fact that they went so high with the sugar versus everything else isn’t exactly honest weight and measures.

    1. The fact that they used so much more sugar than most people ever would, and the results they got were that blood sugar was the same, if they hadn’t done that, would sugar have won?

    1. Good point. This is good information though. Personally I’d rather stick to caloric sweeteners that I know and love if the non-caloric don’t do anything special for blood sugar.

  14. Whenever the next safe natural sweetener or super food supplement is announced, I always wonder where it grows and what effect the new demand will have on the environment. Where are the monkfruit plantations? Also the monkfruit factories, because this is not going to be sold as a whole food, it will come packaged and processed? Isn’t the biggest problem with both sugar and artificial sweeteners that they are not whole foods? Some people use actual stevia leaves, but the vast majority are pouring something out of a packet.

    I am not a locovore, but I am am growing more uneasy about importing too much food from around the world. I’d like to keep my imports down to important foods. Do we really need monkfruit extract from Asia in all the Costcos? What will that cost us all in air quality and other pollution, after the processing and transport? I am a little uneasy about my imported dates and white tea, but they are at least whole foods.

    A few years back, I did an elimination diet and discovered that I hated coffee without soy milk. I liked it with date sugar, but it seemed crazy to keep drinking something I disliked unless I disguised it with sweetener. I guess that’s not a common conclusion?

    1. I agree Anne, I think about that too. Look at the palm oil epidemic… I consider it right along the lines of animal agriculture considering the direct animal cruelty that goes along with it as well as indirect and environmental devastation. It also violates human rights pretty horrifically, some of the people of Borneo have actually put out a petition begging us to stop using palm oil… On top of it all, it’s one of the unhealthiest things for us. I’m surprised Dr. Greger hasn’t done a video on palm oil yet given all that and its popularity.

      1. For tea and things like that, I find it pretty easy to get from companies with transparency in how they work with the locals. A lot of companies actually do good. For example I use shea butter as my main moisturizer and I get FairTale Ghana shea, the company is the manufacturer, I think created and run by one woman, and creates jobs for widowed African women. The trees grow wildly so there’s no plantations or anything.

        1. S, I have a great local supplier for fair trade organic tea, so at least that is shipped only from the grower to the retailer. I have been thinking about switching from coconut to shea oil for exactly the reasons you mention. I’ll look into that supplier. Thanks!

          1. No prob! :) I used to moisturize with coconut oil as well but it never felt that hydrating to me, shea butter is so much more quenching but quality matters. FairTale Ghana has been the best quality I’ve tried which is usually the case when you get straight from the manufacturers.

    2. A little bit of sugar helps the medicine go down, they say. If mixing eg dates with other foods, helps you consume more healthy foods, why not?

      Th problem with the locovore idea, is that the soils and river/lake/coastal waters in many regions may be deficient in certain minerals/nutrients. Eating foods from different regions may reduce our risk of vitamin/mineral defiencies.

      1. Since I come from Michigan, where goiters used to abound, I agree, TG. Still, I worry about importing foods from the other side of the globe, especially non-essentials. I don’t think the lack of iodine in my local vegetables justifies shipping food from China. Surely something closer can do the job.

        Dates are my sweetener of choice, but – I learned that sweetening too many foods with them disrupted my appetite and made want to eat less healthy food. I think we are programmed to want sweet foods, and then have a bug in the program when we get too much of what we want!

        1. I do fine on natural sweeteners or sweet treats like dates and dried mango (yum!)… my only problem with dates is they’re so tempting to just pick up and eat so they never last that long.

          For iodine I use Maine Coast kelp granules, Maine Coast is said to harvest their stuff sustainably.

  15. I use a stevia/monk fruit packet in my smoothies every now and then. I am not interested in hearing how it is bad and I should stop all of it, but I am interested to find out if having that along with a meal (eaten with the smoothie and not just the sweetener by itself) would warrant the same results with the blood sugar spiking later in the day or if this only happens if you have it without any other calories first (as in a diet coke, etc). Just curious.

    1. You could buy a cheap glucose monitor, run some experiments on yourself and let us know! Even with n=1, it would probably be a better study.

  16. If the spikes from non sugar sweetness were due to eating more calories, surely then, the same effect would happen with unsweetened, plain water as well.

    1. Well there is another video on here about how artificial sweeteners such as aspartame actually make you want to eat more. I had experienced this back when I went through my Diet Coke addict phase (so gross!). Maybe all non-caloric (even natural) has this effect?

          1. yes but I meant to type non-caloric sweeteners* torwards the end of it. I don’t think I can blame that one on my phone though lol.

  17. So was this due simply to eating more in the next meal? Does erythritol have this same effect?

    Currently what I do when making a dessert is either sweeten it with whole fruit e.g. banana, dried dates, raisins, or coconut sugar or real maple syrup. I’ve been wanting to try erythritol for but after watching this I’m wondering if it might just be better to stick with the calorie-containing sweeteners such as coconut sugar and maple syrup – I notice a big difference in how I feel when I use maple syrup or coconut sugar over typical refined sugar.

  18. Hello NutritionFacts – I am looking for a concrete response from Dr. G or someone who can answer the very legitimate question about the fact that there was no control in the study showing that all sweeteners showed a spike in blood sugar later in the day.

    Dr. G you have lectured us so very well to make sure there is a control! Why would you use this study and not ask this same question: Where is the control?

    And why won’t you answer us about the control question? Please have this discussion with us – it’s very important as you well know.

    Thank you and looking forward to a response.

    1. Hi, Ruth. You are right to point out the flaws in this study. Although it is not necessarily the best choice, I think the sugar water group is intended to be the control. It might have been better to also have a group consuming no sweetener at all, just plain water, and compare the other groups, including the sugar group, to that. Flaws and all, the study does suggest that sweeteners such as stevia and monkfruit may not be better than sugar for glycemic response. I wonder, however how the unprocessed stevia herb or monkfruit (as opposed to extracts) would stack up.
      Dr. Greger is very busy working on his next book, and keeping up with a limited speaking schedule. He is not avoiding your questions, and he knows they are important. He tries to present the best evidence available. It would be great if better data were available, and hopefully they will be in the future. For now, this will have to do. I hope that helps!

  19. Amazing! I’ve got two questions:
    1. Blood sugar control and people prone to hypoglycemia (bearing in mind that diabetes is not the only thing that can cause that). What does the doctor recommend?
    2. NAFLD and other liver diseases. What is recommended if you have these but also have a sweet tooth?

    1. Hi, Jen. Blood sugar control is enhanced by intake of high-fiber foods, such as whole fruits, vegetables, grains, and legumes. Try satisfying your sweet tooth with high fiber whole fruits, rather than with extracted sweeteners. If you have not already seen them, you might be interested in these videos:
      https://nutritionfacts.org/video/if-fructose-is-bad-what-about-fruit/
      https://nutritionfacts.org/video/prevent-non-alcoholic-fatty-liver-disease/
      While the second one is aimed at preventing NAFLD, the information may also be helpful for those who already have it.
      I hope that helps!

  20. Hi Dr. Greger: Is this study incomplete as so many comments in the blog suggest? If you leave the time to consume your lunch much longer than an hour, at the same calorie value as the people who drank the sugar water, would the results of the very high blood sugar spike from the alternative sweeteners still be the same? Looking at the graph of people who drank sugar water mixed with other sweeteners it clearly shows there is an increase in blood sugar as opposed to the sugar water alone. That means to me that something in these sweeteners exacerbates pancreatic activity if not at the time of consumption then later. What a drag! I love my porridge sweet and I take a little stevia in my tea. Is there anything that is safe? Is it better to just eat plain old sugar rather than the alternatives? Better yet wean myself off all sweetness other than WFPB sources…which are not the same.

    Does anyone know what the people in the blue zones do regarding sweet food? If you look at the Okinawan diet they seem to eat quite a lot of fried and sweet food as well as all the other healthy options and they were in the past, before our diets hit their shores, lived very long and seemingly happy lives.

    1. C here from Wikipedia is a description of the traditional O diet..
      ” The traditional diet of the islanders contains 30% green and yellow vegetables. Although the traditional Japanese diet usually includes large quantities of rice, the traditional Okinawa diet consists of smaller quantities of rice; instead the staple is the purple-fleshed Okinawan sweet potato. The Okinawan diet has only 30% of the sugar and 15% of the grains of the average Japanese dietary intake.[4]
      The traditional diet also includes a tiny amount of fish (less than half a serving per day) and more in the way of soy and other legumes (6% of total caloric intake). Pork is highly valued, yet eaten very rarely.”

  21. Wait a minute! Unless I’m missing something isn’t he saying that the blood sugar spikes at the end of the day for the non-sugar sweeteners occurred because these people ate more food? If so, then what about those who use these non-sugar sweetness and don’t eat more food? Personally, I don’t eat more food just because I sprinkle some stevia or monk fruit on my oatmeal. So if that is the case, then I will not get blood sugar spikes. If that’s the case, I will keep my occasional sprinkling.

    1. Brandit, actually a volunteer on this site explain why non-caloric sweeteners might cause us to eat more, explaining that the sweetness triggers something in our brain so that we expect to get carbs, fiber etc. So I’m wondering if it’s a totally different story if using these non-caloric sweeteners on whole foods as opposed to being taken with water in an empty stomach.

      Her explanation is somewhere above mixed with all the other comments. I believe it was Christine.

    2. Hello Brandit67, many thanks for your comment.

      I’ll quote another volunteer who answered a similar question from another user.

      “(…) the reason non-caloric sweeteners cause blood sugar spikes later in the day is that the sweet taste sets up the expectation of a carbohydrate load, either through brain signaling, sweet taste receptors in the gut, or both. When that expectation is not fulfilled, people crave carbohydrate and eat more when given the opportunity. This appears also to increase the insulin response to subsequent meals”

      Perhaps this effect is not seen in everyone who consumes non-caloric sweeteners if they take a high fiber meal, other studies suggest that the effect is higher on people who consumes the NNS on a regular basis.

      These articles may help to explain this association:
      * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3319034/
      * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5986495/
      * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4661139/

      Hope it helps!

  22. I’d like more information on how to interpret this:
    Were the non-sugar groups post-lunch sugar spikes unnaturally large or just because people ate more?
    If it’s just because people ate more, and assuming people are eating something healthier than pure sugar, then people should eat these non-sugar sweeteners, right?
    If they were someone sensitized to the sugar in their food, then it’s not so obviously good.

    Was this funded by “big sugar”? Where are the people drinking water?

    1. Hello Nicholas, many thanks for your comment.

      I’ll quote another volunteer who answered a similar question from another user, actually there’re many of you that end-up confused or maybe surprised by this results

      First, “(…) the reason non-caloric sweeteners cause blood sugar spikes later in the day is that the sweet taste sets up the expectation of a carbohydrate load, either through brain signaling, sweet taste receptors in the gut, or both. When that expectation is not fulfilled, people crave carbohydrate and eat more when given the opportunity. This appears also to increase the insulin response to subsequent meals”

      Second, this effect apparently is not seen in everyone who consumes non-caloric sweeteners if they take a high fiber meal, like the one coming from fruits, vegestables, whole grains and legumes; other studies suggest that the effect is higher on people who consumes the NNS on a regular basis.

      These articles may help to explain this association:

      * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3319034/
      * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5986495/
      * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4661139/

      Now that we’re talking about NNS, it’s important not only to look it from the caloric/weight control perspective, as a regular consumption of NNS might affect other areas of human health. For example, there’s been a lot of research about how these products could affect human microbiota hence our health:

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4615743/

      With this, I’m trying to say, that even if NNS does not affect weight, caloric consumption or eating behavior, perhaps it can influence other aspects of our health. As you might know, like many other things regarding nutrition and foods, NNS is still a controversial subject, and hopefully, we can see more studies in the future, so we can give better recommendations.

      By the way, no, this study was not founded by a big sugar company.

  23. Is it only because you ate more later of a day causing sugar spikes for non-caloric sweeteners, e.g. so if one control my eating, there won’t be spikes?

    1. Hello Kyle, many thanks for your comment.

      I’ll quote another volunteer who answered a similar question from another user.

      “(…) the reason non-caloric sweeteners cause blood sugar spikes later in the day is that the sweet taste sets up the expectation of a carbohydrate load, either through brain signaling, sweet taste receptors in the gut, or both. When that expectation is not fulfilled, people crave carbohydrate and eat more when given the opportunity. This appears also to increase the insulin response to subsequent meals”

      Perhaps this effect is not seen in everyone who consumes non-caloric sweeteners if they take a high fiber meal, other studies suggest that the effect is higher on people who consumes the NNS on a regular basis.

      These articles may help to explain this association:
      * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3319034/
      * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5986495/
      * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4661139/

      As you might know, like many other things regarding nutrition and foods, NNS is still a controversial subject, and hopefully, we can see more studies in the future, so we can give better recommendations

      Hope it helps!

  24. As so often happens, I suspect this is not the whole story.

    The ‘just as bad’ observation is over-reaching. Taking the research results further than they actually suggest.

    A blood-sugar spike isn’t everything. There is more going on.

    Just a thought …

    1. Well I beg you pardon….

      we could be going back to threads like in 2014, and voicing comment on them, and I guess expecting response….I mean who would do that?
      ;)

      So it could or we could be far far worse off….we could be not almost out in the ozone layer, but firmly completely far beyond it.

  25. I know that Dr. Gregor advocates the use of erythritol when in need of some sort of sweetener. I wonder how erythritol would affect insulin and blood sugar levels. Does anyone know if this is been addressed by Dr. Gregory?

  26. Did this study do a test leaving more than an hour before you eat? Does this effect register if you do not eat at all, after say sweetening your tea with stevia or does the effect get stored up no matter when you eat after consuming a natural sweetener other than sugar?

  27. Hi Charmaine- Yes, the study included a phase where they gave people drinks sweetened with monk fruit extract, stevia, or sugar, then recorded both immediate sugar and insulin spikes then spikes that occurred after a meal delayed for an hour. There was not an arm of the study looking at whether meals at, say 2 or 3 hours later result in glucose or insulin spikes. Food for thought! -Dr Anderson, Health Support Volunteer

  28. There is a point that seemed to me was missed by all the comments I read here: when splenda is added, the sugar water results e greater blood sugar spikes. Isn’t it likely that by having non-sugar sweetners in their boold, the sugars in the lunch resulted also in bigger blood sugar spikes? Maybe, I hypothesize, because these sweetners are filling all the receptors that otherwise sugar normaly would, and so more sugar is ‘unnoticed’ by the body’s mechanisms to carry it to the cells?

    1. Hi Rodrigo,

      I am a volunteer for Dr. Greger. Thanks so much for your question.

      Although this study has many limitations, the spike in blood sugar would likely not be from the artificial sweetners filling the sugar receptors. This is because most non-nutritive sweetners are actually not absorbed into the bloodstream. They remain in the gut. Therefore, the mechanism you proposed is likely not to be true. But we love that people on here, including you, are hypothesizing the reasons for why studies find certain results. That is the scientific way of thinking that helps us move research forward to answer imperative questions.

  29. this study and video is idiotic and entirely misses the point of natural zero Cal / gi sweeteners and nutrition in general. It doesn’t even answer the titular question is monk fruit sweetener safe – yes it is. To clarify, monk fruit and stevia have zero cals and zero effect on blood sugar. To ignore this in the light of raising obesity and diabetes is stupid. More stupid is to site a study that considers average blood sugar in regard to individuals left to eat what they want – seriously! What use is this? Its not the monk fruit its the donut they had at lunch.
    Also, a healthy diet includes more than sweeteners. If you make a muffin with a resistant starch flour like green banana, or healthy almond flour and use monk fruit sweetener, this can be a healthy and satiating snack. It wont be loaded with sugar. If you are going to make a statement based on research, pick less idiotic studies.

  30. I don’t know if this is the right place to post this but I was wondering what food beverage or spice has the highest amount of antioxidants ounce for ounce in the world last I heard it was amla powder is that still the case and if it is is there a particular brand I should look for or are all amla powders out there the same

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This