1
She was fired after not endorsing Splenda-filled salads to people with diabetes
(www.theguardian.com)
Reminds me of Brawndo in Idiocracy simply buying the FDA and FCC
this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)
Health - Resources and discussion for everything health-related
2314 readers
16 users here now
Health: physical and mental, individual and public.
Discussions, issues, resources, news, everything.
See the pinned post for a long list of other communities dedicated to health or specific diagnoses. The list is continuously updated.
Nothing here shall be taken as medical or any other kind of professional advice.
Commercial advertising is considered spam and not allowed. If you're not sure, contact mods to ask beforehand.
Linked videos without original description context by OP to initiate healthy, constructive discussions will be removed.
Regular rules of lemmy.world apply. Be civil.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
As a type 2 diabetic myself having managed my condition well now for over a decade, there's no other way to put this: The ADA's guidelines and recommendations are fucking garbage. And advice I've received from doctors hasn't been much better, since they're generally following the aforementioned guidelines.
Ack. I hate sweet salad dressing, think that just from a culinary standpoint she was right to push back on these. Training your palate to enjoy other flavors would go a long way to getting a lower sugar diet.
I also fucking hate the taste of monkfruit and stevia, they are most foul.
But if her argument is that the sweet tasting non caloric sweeteners directly promote diabetes, like they act like sugar, I think this has been disproven several times over.
Splenda does not increase risk of diabetes. It's not unhealthy. This article is nonsense. My favorite salad dressing uses a quarter cup of splenda, it's fine.
Some study done a while ago said that eating things that are sweet, but with no caloric value, make you crave other caloricly dense sweet things, which can lead to an increase in diabetes risk. The key ingredient to that increase, is eating sugary things, not eating splenda.
This is stupid.
You didn't quite read past the headline huh
I actually read the study the article is based on, so... it's linked there, right in the article
The "study you read a while ago" evolved into the one in the article when you were gently challenged? Dude that's crazy.
Here's the research you didn't read. It was published in 2022, hence "I read it a while ago"
They showed a correlation with a change in gut microbiota that's not as significant of a change as when eating just sugar.
hence, this is stupid. Don't want adult onset diabetes? don't overeat a bunch of sugar. Using splenda to help reduce the amount of sugar you eat on a daily basis, will cause a change in your gut micrbiota associated with increased serum insulin levels in response to glucose loads. But when compared to just eating sugar instead? Well, Splenda is better.
would you like me to keep reading things for you, or you think you can take it from here, champ?
You didn't read the article or its' study. You linked a related (but not closely) article you hadn't read before and just searched. The article is not claiming that splenda causes diabetes, nor is the study, but it is pointing to conditioning the pallette for sweetness increasing the risk of diabetes. It's cute you tried to be condescending but maybe actually take the time to read the content if you've got time to try and be an asshole.
This is another example of greed/capitalism/failure of institutions. I firmly believe this type of behavior is what leads to people losing trust in institutions and science. Why people turn to conspiracy theories and all natural anti-vaxx terrain.
Low-carb diets work. Why does the American Diabetes Association push insulin instead? https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/17/ada-american-diabetes-association-big-pharma
PS, from $1 to oligopolies.
Some people don't even make insulin on their own... they sorta have to use insulin.
A low-carb diet is not going to miracle cure someone's defective pancreas.
Yes, but that's not what the piece is talking about either. We've gone from stick to the facts, to while I have you here, let me interest you in this product...
There is a very real issue of not focusing on preventative measure and education and instead raking it in by way of hocking products. Conflict of interest is a real thing and not much money to be made by way of education and preventative teachings. But thats what gives openings to Joe Rogan types instead to hock their teachings.
...are you seriously asking why the ADA advises insulin use for patients with diabetes
I can only hope most people just read the start
No, thats not what the piece is advocating or talking about at all. If you read it.
Read the study the article is based on. That's what I read. guess you didn't?
Do you or someone from your family work for big pharma? Or perhaps a member of Wall St, not Main Street, and own shares. I'm not anti-insulin or science, I was vaccinated from the go when covid hit. But conflict of interest means obfuscation and self-interest when you should focus on the science and the people. Do you want to pretend big pharma wants to deliver the best at the lowest prices for people who need the drugs? I'm not so naive but u go ahead and go to bat for them.
Reading the ADA’s publications, one would get the impression it is a grassroots organization supported by moms and pops. A banner on their website blares: “Your Support Goes Twice as Far!” Every few seconds, a pop-up announces a new small donation: “Patrick F donated $100.” “L Robert H. donated $12.” “Al S donated $20.” These small donors may not know that, in 2021, the Patients for Affordable Drugs report, found that a third “of the members of the ADA board of directors have financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry”.
You're confusing my intentions. I'm here to defend splenda, it's safety, and it's deliciousness.
The conflict of interest between Americas regulatory bodies and it's corporations is extremely concerning. The fact that Medical companies are allowed to advertise products still blows my mind. Those are a few of the many reasons I'm a big advocate of Universal health care. There's a lot of shady shit, but you can take my splenda from my cold dead hands.
"You’re confusing my intentions."
I'm here to focus on the conflicts of interest between regulatory bodies, corporations and institutions that are meant to educate the population on things like healthcare. Yeah, it's a huge problem, bigger than the subjective deliciousness of Splenda.
For those confused about why Splenda is problematic, it has less than a third of the calories as Cane Sugar. So when you add a lot of it to a recipe it can be as bad as adding some sugar.
I'm sure Elizabeth Hanna approved some use cases for Splenda, but 1/3 of a cup for a cucumber salad is silly.
it has no calories, what are you talking about?
Splenda is a low calories sweetener, the only reason a small package can say Zero Calories is just because of archaic FDA rule that some ingredients don't have to be listed below 5 Grams which works as a sort of loophole for very small servings to not list things. There are 96 Calories and 24 carbs per Cup of Splenda.
Isn't the whole point, at least for aspertame and other sweetners- I don't know about Splenda; that they have a much stronger flavor so you use nowhere near as much
No. Sweetness does not come from calories, it comes from the shape of the molecule as it touches the taste buds. Zero Calorie sweeteners do exist. Splenda is not one of them.
People who shy away from sweets more often have a biological issue with high caloric content, such as diabetes or otherwise chronic weight gain caused by a type of Thyroid disorder. Some people simply prefer to stay at their current weight and avoid the health complications that come with high calories.
No. Sweetness does not come from calories,
Agreed.
That wasn't my point. My point was that where you would use a cup of sugar you'd use less Splenda than that, because it is sweeter. It is also lower calorie. Those are two compounding effects.
I answered your question, that's not the point of using low or zero calorie sweeteners because volume has absolutely no correlation to calories or sweetness. Using less or more cups is meaningless in a discussion of their nutritional value.
It was poor rhetorical phrasing meant to emphasize it's much sweeter than sugar, yes I know the point is also that they're low calorie.
Using less or more cups is meaningless in a discussion of their nutritional value.
Well that's not entirely true, extremely high doses of aspartame at least in rats was associated with cancer.
Yes, don't drink the equivalent of 500 Sugar Free Gatorades a day. Goes without saying.
Maltodextrin, which is used in splenda, has calories. Sucralose doesn't.
Adding sugar or sweetener to a salad is absolutely insane to me. I think the most sweetness I've ever added to a salad is fresh lemon juice in the dressing, but actual sugar/sweetener?
A little bit, like a teaspoon of sugar or honey is quite common and can complement an acidic or salty flavour. But a third of a cup is insane unless you're cooking for an army.
view more: next ›