The best artificial sweeteners

Our new recipes, such as New York Style Cheesecake and Chocolate Coconut Bread, are wheat-free and low- or no-carbohydrate. They fit perfectly into the New Track Your Plaque Diet for gaining control over coronary atherosclerotic plaque, not to mention diabetes, pre-diabetes, hypertension, small LDL particles, high triglycerides, high inflammation (c-reactive protein) and other distortions of metabolism.

However, there's one compromise: We include use of non-nutritive sweeteners. It's therefore important to know that artificial sweeteners are not all created equal.

One common tripping point: maltodextrin.

Maltodextrin is composed of polymers (repeating subunits) of glucose, as few as 3 or as many as 20 or more glucose subunits. So maltodextrin is glucose sugar. While it lacks the especially destructive pentose sugar, fructose, maltodextrin is metabolized to glucose and thereby increases blood sugar substantially.

Many artificial sweeteners are bulked up with maltodextrin. For instance, granulated Splenda and Stevia in the Raw, two sweeteners billed as low-calorie and sugar-free that is used on a cup-for-cup basis like sugar, are primarily maltodextrin--with only a teensy bit of Splenda or stevia.

The best artificial sweeteners, i.e., the most benign without a load of maltodextrin, are:

Liquid stevia--Just the extract from stevia leaves and water. It can be a bit pricey, e.g., $10 for a 2 oz bottle, but a little goes a long way.

Truvia--While I'm not too fond of the manufacturer (Cargill), I believe that Truvia is among the better sweeteners around. It is a mixture of the natural sugar, erythritol, that generates little to no blood sugar effects and rebiana (rebaudioside), an isolate of stevia. Some people aren't too fond of the mild menthol-like cooling effect of the erythritol nor the slight aftertaste. I find it works pretty well in most recipes.

Be aware that, no matter which artificial sweetener you use, it has the potential to stimulate appetite. I therefore like to not eat foods sweetened with liquid stevia or Truvia in isolation but as part of a meal. That way, any appetite stimulation that results is substantially quelled by the proteins and fats ingested.

Reprinted here is the unfailingly informative Vitamin D Newsletter from Dr. John Cannell. Although there's little here specifically about heart disease, there's so much great information about vitamin D that I thought most would still appreciate it.

The Vitamin D Newsletter

May, 2008

Yesterday's Washington Post article, Too-Good-To-Be-True Nutrient?, sums up the April 9th vitamin D symposium at UCSD in San Diego, which was nothing short of spectacular. Carole Baggerly outdid herself organizing it and explaining how she got involved. Make no mistake; Carole is both serious and energetic. She told about her efforts to introduce resolutions at upcoming meetings of various professional groups. Then she introduced the volunteers from the San Diego Black Nurses Association who made sure the conference went off without a hitch. Then Carole introduced the four speakers. The slides of each speaker are available at Grassroots Health.

Before I tell you the highlights of the conference, I'd like to tell you about another conference, this one in Germany, this May 17th and 18th. It is the Third International Symposium on Vitamin D Analogs in Cancer Prevention and Therapy. Readers know how I feel about giving analogs to vitamin D deficient patients instead of vitamin D but speakers include Michael Holick, Reinhold Veith, Bill Grant, Tai Chen, Heidi Cross, David Feldman, and Roger Bouillon, all of whom know the importance of the nutrient. Most of this conference is for scientists, not lay people. However, Michael Holick is the first speaker and if you have not heard his latest talk about vitamin D, it might be worth a trip to Germany.

The first San Diego speaker was Dr. William Grant. Since leaving NASA to begin a full-time career as a vitamin D researcher, Bill has published dozens of studies and has another dozen in the works. Using ecological studies (from Greek oikos, house + German -logie, study or studying your own house) of UVB irradiance and cancer, Bill reported that 15 cancers (colon, esophageal, gallbladder, gastric, pancreatic, rectal, small intestinal, bladder, kidney, prostate, breast, endometrial, ovarian, Hodgkin's lymphoma, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma) are associated with lower UVB light. He concluded that 257,000 cancer deaths in 2007 in the USA were accounted for by inadequate vitamin D levels. Of course the problem with ecological studies is that it easy to be vitamin D deficient in Miami, all you have to do is listen to your doctor's advice and stay out of the sun. Recently, a group from the Arizona Cancer Center found almost 80% of Arizonians had levels below 30 ng/ml. So much for sunny spots.

Jacobs ET, et al. Vitamin D insufficiency in southern Arizona. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 Mar;87(3):608-13.

The next speaker was Professor Cedric Garland. I found myself wondering how he did it. I became convinced that vitamin D prevents cancer five years ago. Cedric and his brother Frank and his colleague Ed Gorham knew it 30 years ago! I know what it is like to tell someone that vitamin D prevents cancer and see them think, "Here we go again, another miracle vitamin." I know what it is like to try and explain and watch people die unnecessarily. But I've only had that experience for five years. Cedric has dealt with that frustration for thirty years. Almost thirty years ago, Cedric and Frank Garland published evidence that vitamin D prevents cancer. In fact, it was Cedric's first publication. Thankfully, the paper was recently recognized as being so important that it was republished in 2006 by the International Journal of Epidemiology. You can read the entire paper for free by clicking on the second link below and then clicking on "free final text", courtesy of Oxford Journals.

Garland CF, Garland FC. Do sunlight and vitamin D reduce the likelihood of colon cancer? Int J Epidemiol. 1980 Sep;9(3):227-31.

Garland CF, Garland FC. Do sunlight and vitamin D reduce the likelihood of colon cancer? Int J Epidemiol. 2006 Apr;35(2):217-20.

Cedric began by showing the incidence of type-1 diabetes and multiple sclerosis by latitude. I had no idea that the latitudinal data was so strong for type 1 diabetes in children. This disease is almost nonexistent around the equator. Type-1 diabetes is but one of the three modern childhood epidemics caused by the sunlight-hating dermatologists, the other two, I think, are autism and asthma. Next he showed latitude and 25(OH)D levels, which reminded me to be suspicious of high levels, unless they use accurate methods of detecting 25(OH)D. Some methods used, even in this country, are over detecting vitamin D and telling patients their levels are above 50 ng/ml when they are, in reality, much lower. Cedric's data showed Thailand had mean levels of 70 ng/ml, which I doubt and suspect were due to inaccurate 25(OH)D tests. He then reviewed evidence of the 25(OH)D levels needed to prevent numerous cancers. The safest levels are somewhere above 50 ng/ml. Cedric spent most of his time presenting an entirely new theory of carcinogenesis, one dependent on vitamin D maintaining cellular junctions. I suspect this paper will also be reprinted in 20 years. The only disagreement I have is with his recommendation for cancer patients to start at fairly low doses. For reasons I recently explained, the risk benefit analysis indicates cancer patients should take 5,000 to 10,000 IU per day and they may have no time to lose. Why worry about the phantom of vitamin D toxicity if you may be dying of cancer? Just have your calcium checked along with frequent 25(OH)D levels. Get your levels up to 70-90 ng/ml if you have cancer.

Does vitamin D treat cancer?

The next speaker was Professor Bruce Hollis. He reviewed basic physiology of vitamin D and emphasized that the entire system is designed to deal with an excess not with an insufficiency of vitamin D. Numerous mechanisms are available in your body to prevent vitamin D toxicity but few are available to deal with insufficiency. Then he briefly mentioned one of the most important discoveries about vitamin D in the last few years, one where Professor Neil Binkley of the University of Wisconsin was senior author. (In the last four years, Professor Binkley has become a prolific vitamin D expert and I hope Carol Baggerly is able to get him to speak at some of the upcoming conferences she hopes to sponsor.) As I have pointed out before, Hollis and Binkley's crucial discovery was that the body doesn't start storing the parent compound, cholecalciferol, until 25(OH)D levels reach about 50 ng/ml. They showed, using basic steroid pharmacology, that 50 ng/ml should be considered the lower limit of adequate 25(OH)D levels.

Hollis BW, Wagner CL, Drezner MK, Binkley NC. Circulating vitamin D3 and 25-hydroxyvitamin D in humans: An important tool to define adequate nutritional vitamin D status. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2007 Mar;103(3-5):631-4.

Bruce kept the audience enthralled with a review of all the disease states that indicate 25(OH)D levels need to be much higher than they are now, that is, the multiple biomarkers that suggest the lower limit of 25(OH)D levels should be above 40 ng/ml and closer to 50 ng/ml. Then Professor Hollis spoke of his ongoing study in pregnant women and how he got approval to use 4,000 IU of vitamin D per day back in 2003, quite an accomplishment. He also reviewed another one of his research projects, one that answered an age old question, why is breast milk a poor source of vitamin D? How were prehistoric infants supposed to get their vitamin D, by lying out in the sun where saber tooth tigers would eat them? No, they were hidden in caves and had to have another source or the human race would have died out long ago because rickets destroys a woman's and infant's chance to live through childbirth due to rachitic deformations of the mother's pelvis. Carol Wagner and Bruce Hollis, together with their colleagues, answered that age old question, human breast milk is a poor vitamin D source because virtually all modern mothers are vitamin D deficient. That is, when pregnant women keep their levels where we think prehistoric human levels were, about 50 ng/ml, breast milk becomes a rich source of vitamin D. First Carol and Bruce gave 2,000 IU per day, then 4,000 IU per day and finally 6400 IU of D3 per day to lactating women. Only at 6400 of D3/day did the women maintain both their own 25(OH)D levels and the levels of their breast feeding babies above 50 ng/ml. On 6400 IU/day, the vitamin D activity of the breast milk went from about 80 to 800 IU/L. Quite a discovery, and another reason for all of us to keep our levels above 50 ng/ml.

Wagner CL, Hulsey TC, Fanning D, Ebeling M, Hollis BW. High-dose vitamin D3 supplementation in a cohort of breastfeeding mothers and their infants: a 6-month follow-up pilot study. Breastfeed Med. 2006 Summer;1(2):59-70.

Professor Robert Heaney went last, discussing 74 slides. So much of what we know about vitamin D today is due to Robert's unceasing dedication to vitamin D, the most recent example being his and Joanne Lappe's randomized controlled trial showing that increasing baseline levels from 29 to 38 ng/ml reduced the risk of getting cancer by around 70%. He again pointed out that the body does not begin to consistently store much vitamin D until your levels get to around 50 ng/ml. He also went through multiple biomarkers of vitamin D. That is, what level or intakes do you have to have to reduce the incidence of multiple diseases? He covered calcium absorption, osteoporosis, risk of falling, muscle function, death and disability of the aged, TB, influenza, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, diabetes, cancer, multiple sclerosis, and gum disease. How can one vitamin be involved in so many diseases? Simple said Dr. Heaney, "vitamin D is the key that unlocks the DNA library." He then reviewed toxicity and concluded there is no evidence that it occurs at levels below 200 ng/ml or with intakes (total) below 30,000 IU per day. Of course, we have no reason to think anyone needs 30,000 IU per day or levels of 200 ng/ml, which would be irresponsible. But someone with a serious cancer should consider getting their level up to 70-90 ng/ml and that may take 10,000 IU per day or even more in some people. As a rule of thumb, 1,000 IU will raise 25(OH)D levels by about 10 ng/ml.

Then Professor Heaney addressed a public health question. How much would we have to give all Americans to get 98% of people above 32 ng/ml without causing toxicity in anybody? The answer: 2,000 IU per day. Of course 32 ng/ml is not adequate but it would be a great first step. Furthermore, of the people left out, a high percentage would be African Americans. In fact, Dr. Talwar recently reported that 40% of African American women fail to achieve a level of 30 ng/ml even after taking 2,000 IU/day for a year.

Talwar SA, Aloia JF, Pollack S, Yeh JK. Dose response to vitamin D supplementation among postmenopausal African American women. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Dec;86(6):1657-62.

He also discussed his recent study giving healthy adults 100,000 IU as a single dose. If you start with a baseline level of 28 ng/ml and take 100,000 IU as a single dose, mean levels will remain above 32 ng/ml for two months. If you rely on such stoss doses, but you start with a lower level, or want your levels above 50 ng/ml, how often do you need to take 100,000 IU? We don't know the answer to the last question but we know that Grey et al gave 50,000 IU per week for four weeks then 50,000 per month for a year to 21 patients with hyperparathyroidism. Blood levels rose from a mean of 11 ng/ml at baseline to 30 ng/ml at one year and levels did not continue to rise after six months. Remember, that means half the patients had levels lower than 30 ng/ml at the end of the year. Also remember that the metabolic clearance (how quickly you use it up) might be higher in certain disease states.

Grey A, et al. Vitamin D repletion in patients with primary hyperparathyroidism and coexistent vitamin D insufficiency. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2005 Apr;90(4):2122-6.

That last point, metabolic clearance, is only one of a number of reasons that patients vary in their response to vitamin D. Remember, a surprising number of patients will tell their physician they are taking vitamin D when they are not, some will be taking preparations that have less in it than the label says, some will not absorb it, and some people weigh more than others. As Dr. Heaney points out, even if you know patients took 100,000 IU, great variably exists in individual response. At the end of two months some will have shown a minimal response and other much more. This is a field where little is known. Do different disease states use up vitamin D quickly? The answer is probably yes. Furthermore, variability also exists in how one metabolizes and catabolizes (breaks down) vitamin D. Also, what is the interactive effect of drugs that use the same liver enzymes for catabolism? We just don't know and that is why vitamin D blood testing is crucial. Remember, the only test to have is a 25-hydroxy-vitamin D. Do not let anyone get a 1,25-dihydroxy-vitamin D; it will not tell you if you are vitamin D deficient and is usually only indicated in evaluating high blood calcium.

As far as 25(OH)D levels go, many of you have written complaining about the high cost of a 25(OH)D levels at some labs. I've got some good news. For the next month, Life Extension Foundation is having a sale on their 25(OH)D blood tests, only $32.25, including the fee for drawing the blood. (No, we don't get funding from Life Extension, I wish we did.) Life Extension uses LabCorp, which, in turn, uses an accurate method to determine 25(OH)D levels, the DiaSorin Laiason method. The only problem is that DiaSorin, LabCorp, and Life Extension all say that 30 ng/ml is acceptable. It is not. Take enough vitamin D or get enough UVB radiation to get your levels above 50 ng/ml. To order the test, call Life Extension at 800 208-3444. Unfortunately, this offer is not available in New York, New Jersey or Rhode Island.

Also, Dr. James Dowd has written a fine book about vitamin D, The Vitamin D Cure. Get this, he is board certified in internal medicine, adult rheumatology, and pediatric rheumatology, an associate professor at Michigan State University, and runs his own Arthritis Institute and the Michigan Arthritis Research Center. He gives a formula for how much vitamin D you need but stresses the importance of testing to know for sure. He uses the formula of 2000 IU for every 100 pounds of body weight, which is as accurate an estimation as one can make without knowing baseline levels. Of course it depends on so many things, as Dr. Dowd points out, such as percentage body fat, latitude, skin type, sun exposure and age. He gives case after case examples of how vitamin D not just prevents disease, but seems to have a treatment effect. He also stresses three other things I've written about before, acid base balance, magnesium and potassium. If you can't get eat enough fruits and green leafy vegetables to obtain your potassium and magnesium and to get rid of low-grade chronic metabolic acidosis, then you should consider magnesium supplements and potassium bicarbonate supplements.

With these four experts and with this month's vitamin D news articles about breast cancer, brain function, artery blockage in the legs, soft skulls in babies, peripheral neuropathy in diabetics, childhood type-1 diabetes, colon cancer, and stress fractures and with the increasing number of scientists around the world jumping on the vitamin D express, why doesn't the government do something? What will it take? Like Carole says it will take a grassroots effort.

The first thing to do is tell your family and friends about vitamin D. Tell your doctor. Get your family's 25(OH)D tested, including your children. Once people begin to see it works, they will get their family and friends to take it. They will feel better and then the word will spread. All the government can do is make vitamin D illegal or limit the amount in each pill. The first is unlikely but not the second. With 5,000 IU capsules widely available, many people give no thought to taking one a day. But if the government limits the sale of anything over 400 IU and people had to take 12 of the 400 IU tablets, instead of one of the 5,000 IU, they might balk at so many pills. Before our officials in Washington take such a step, let's hope they read the Washington Post.

John Cannell, MD
The Vitamin D Council

This is a periodic newsletter from the Vitamin D Council, a non-profit trying to end the epidemic of vitamin D deficiency. This newsletter is not copyrighted. Please reproduce it and post it on Internet sites. We are a nonprofit tax-exempt educational organization and depend on your donations.

The Vitamin D Council
9100 San Gregorio road
Atascadero, CA 93422

Princess Dieter
8/12/2011 11:53:20 PM |

Thank you for the link. I was just talking with hubby last night about finding a recipe for cheesecake that had no wheat/gluten and would be good for us for special treats/occasions (like an upcoming family birthday). Yay.

pjnoir
8/13/2011 2:52:19 AM |

I never use Truvia. The best stavia hands down is SweetLeaf, either the liquid or the powder. BUT Stevia acts like insulin, in fact, Asia has been using it as an insulin substitute and comes with a warning to diabetics about using it with oneâ€™s daily insulin shots. I stopped using it as I donâ€™t need to rev up by insulin production. Iâ€™m diabetic. I still go with local honey and get the benefits of having local pollen in my body.

Shreela
8/13/2011 3:27:35 AM |

Both DH and I noticed the aftertaste. I figured out how to use half stevia/half sugar for a few days, then 1/4 each, then all stevia, which solved the aftertaste problem for me. I then tried one teaspoon of sugar to a quart of stevia-sweetened tea with DH - he didn't notice any weird taste. So hopefully just adding a tiny bit of sugar for 1-2 weeks will get your taste buds used to stevia.

Gabriella Kadar
8/13/2011 3:29:15 AM |

Why do people feel the need to eat desserts? Doesn't adherence to a consistent low carb diet eventually curb most of the craving for sweets? One teaspoon of fruit jam should be able to quell any overweening desire. Or is the socio-cultural programming for eating confections so deeply ingrained that people just can't live without?

Michia
8/13/2011 9:06:53 AM |

I agree.  In our house (LC for years), the same logic applies to low carb "treats" that applies to low carb Frankenfoods.  Don't eat foods that are trying to be foods that you know you can no longer have.

There is a real danger in continuing to eat really sweet foods, even artificially sweetened.  "Low carb" needs to be "low sweet".  If you hang in there, you do eventually lose your taste for it.

As for Splenda, you can find the liquid if  you try.  And the mini tablets are minimally carby.

cancerclasses
8/13/2011 6:13:31 PM |

Both cancer & systemic fungi make energy by means of glycolysis and create demands for large amounts of sugars. People with continuing carb cravings that won't resolve may have one or the other condition. Otherwise I'm with you, people hanging onto sweets are still living to eat rather than eating to live.

Might-o'chondri-AL
8/13/2011 7:27:21 PM |

Hi Dr. Davis,
Server blocked me elsewhere, so writing this here.
Amazake data when made from white rice (brown, short & long may each differ) =
30 - 70 % complex carbohydrate saccharides
20 - 45 % maltose (not amylose)
3 - 5 % glucose
5 - 9 % protein
3 - 5% fat
1 - 7 % fiber
0.3 - 0.4 % mineral ash
iron, niacin & thiamine

Sample 1 liter (1 quart) sauce pan Amazake home kitchen batch:
200 ml ( 7 ounce volume, +/- 200 grams) short grain brown rice rinsed and drained
bring to boil  in 2.5 times the volume water
reduce heat to low and, covered,  cook 50 - 60 minutes (until not wet)
transfer cooked rice to an incubation vessel & let cool
when cooled to  60* Celcius (140 * F) mix with 400 ml (14 ounce volume) of Koji innoculant
cover with aluminum foil (or somehow) and put where can keep warm
incubation ideal temperature is 57 - 60 * C  (with leeway)
ferment for  desired time , 12 hours sweeter and I use 22 hours
when time up pan boil the Amazake (stir) 3- 5 minutes to inactivate Koji fungi
refrigerated covered keeps weeks

Dosages mentioned previously (for 165 pound adult, and Amazake was eaten with protein and fat):
(a) " low" dose with 2 hour blood glucose ending up being same as pre-prandial blood glucose was 1/8th (by volume) of the above Amazake (rough calculation would thus be ingesting 1/8th  of  +/- 600 grams  total of original dry rice and Koji rice)
(b) "high" dose with 2 hour blood glucose rebound (suggested for athletes carbs) was 1/4 (by volume) of the above Amazake recipe (rough calculation  would in this case be ingesting 1/4 of +/- 600 grams total of original dry rice and Koji rice)

Koji innoculant ( steamed white glutinous rice infused with Aspergillus oryzae and then dessicated) used was wholesale direct from L.A. producer Miyako Oriental Foods 626-962-9633; call for your local retailer of their Koji under the "Cold Mountain" brand. They recommend double their Koji for any volume of rice substrate. Other makers of Koji proportions may be less if the Koji is less dehydrated; family business G.E.M. Cultures in Wash. mail orders their Koji and it may (?) be suitable for using less (GEM also sells spores with instructions to make your own Koji).

Might-o'chondri-AL
8/13/2011 7:43:26 PM |

Dr. Davis,
Orientation for those athletes interested in experimenting with Amazake:
Innoculant of rice is Aspergillus oryzae fungal infused rice grains, called Koji; Koji has alpha-amylase, glyco-amylase, acid protease, lipase, amylo-glucosidase , acid carboxy-peptidase , chitosinase and citric acid.
Incubation lets fungal penetrate new rice substrate and fungal hyphal tip performs hydrolytic enzyme secretion.

Cooking the rice first gelatinizes the starch held in granules inside of organelles with lipoprotein membranes (amyloplasts) into 16 - 30% amylose and 65 - 85 % amylopectin which are ammenable to hyphal hydrolytic action. Koji's amylo-glucosidase enzyme digests the gel &  Koji's alpha amylase enzyme reduces molecular size of amylose, which makes it less viscous and more fluidly mobile. It is glyco-amylase enzyme that turns amylose and some of the amylo-pectin chains  into glucose.
Incubation lets the fungi grow and their mycellial cell wall builds up with the amino mono-saccharide glucosamine (a.k.a. chitosan); fungi generally have 67 - 126 mg mycelial glucosamine per 1 gram dry weight mycellium. Amazake is well tolerated by most since glucosamine is useful in colitis. Glucosamine (chitosan) is a poly-cationic bio-polymer formed when chitosanase I enzyme de-acetylates chitin (in fiber); with optimal enzymatic pH being 5.5 - 6.5. Chitosan is more acid pH soluble than chitin and under chitosanase II enzyme (working from pH 3.8 -8.5) some chitin is de-acetylated to form more oligo-saccharides.

Amazake may have biologically active high molecular weight immunological poly-anionic polysaccharide
derivatives like the poly-acetyl carboxylic acid  COAM (chlorite oxidase oxy-amylose). COAM comes about when a saccharide chain is oxidatively cleaved between 2 carbon atoms resulting in oxy-amylose, a polymer of 2 aldehyde functions;  when these aldehydes gets further oxidized they produce functional carboxyls.  Rice has aldehydes like the volatile aldehyde hexanal we smell as stored rice &/or from rice bran.

Rice, like most bean & grain carbohydrate polysaccharides, include the following in both the soluble and insoluble form: arabinoxylan, beta-glucan, cellulose, mannose, galactose, xylose and uronic acid. For us these non-starch  polysaccharides are not digestible;  as neither is fiber (made up of cellulose, hemicellulose, pectin and lignan ) since 90% of our dietary fiber is linked together by beta-glycosides that our digestive enzymes can't cleave. Arabinoxylan, mannan, galacto-mannan and xylan are considered anti-nutritional since can lower intestinal uptake of nutrients; while mannose reacts with amino groups in dietary protein to reduce the amount of certain aminos properly digested.

Koji's fungal hyphal hydrolytic enzymes include mannosidase enzymes; beta mannanase catalyses the mannosidic links in insoluble mannan polysacharides where there are galactosyl residual features.  The  so-called endo-mannanase (a manno -hydrolase) cleaves mannan and galactomannan to free up molecules like manno-triose, manno-biose and manno-tetraose that human gut Bifidobacteria can then feed on. This may be part of why a substantial dose of Amazake seems to yield more delivery of  sustained energy beyond what one would get from the usual amount of short chain fatty acids put out by gut bacteria.

Amazake incubation is a solid state fermentation, since want the minimal free fluid when culturing;  too much water and the substrate porosity is diminished and resultant depressed oxygen transport in substrate  causes fungal cell numbers to decline. A  submerged fungal ferment, when cooked rice with koji substrate is set out  too soupy can result in 3.5 times less enzymatic activity. Using  too much rice substrate mixed with too sparse koji innoculant and the fermentation won't proceed promptly due to low oxygen. Also do not stir the blend while incubating to avoid damaging mature fungal hyphae or breaking new growth.

Mannanase enzyme development in 1st day is less than 50 units/gram and this goes to a maximum of 100 units/gram after 2 days; a peak mannanase content seems to be +/- 250 units/gram on days 3-5. I incubate short grain brown rice Amazake for 22 hours; while most commercial Amazake products and home producers probably do not incubate more than 12 hours. The longer incubation is allowed to go on for the more llikely bitter flavors develop from oxidation of the bran's oil content;  yet the bran is desired for it affords better beta- mannanase and beta-mannosidase enzymatic formation.

Amazake has exceptional anti-oxidant properties; with longer incubation time this activity increases. Amazake also raises the bodies ability to inhibit lipid peroxidation; so concern over any of rice bran's oil oxidation is probably moot.
END

Elenor
8/14/2011 5:13:52 PM |

You don't mention liquid surcralose (Splenda) -- which has all the 'benefits' of sucralose without the maltodextrin. I use it and nothing else.

Dr. William Davis
8/15/2011 12:51:28 PM |

Wow, Might. You are a walking Wikipedia!

Thanks for the incredible insights.

Marlene
8/15/2011 5:44:10 PM |

I have never been able to find liquid Splenda in stores in the U.S. If it's there, what brand name is it sold under?

ibh
8/15/2011 8:36:23 PM |

I use Sweet Leaf as well. It is in the powder from. the box states no chemicals,no alcohols, no erythritol, no ethanol or menthol,, no aspartame, no sucralose, no maltodextrin, no dextrose or additivees. Seems clean to me. Any thoughts as to problems with this product.

Anonymous
8/15/2011 8:36:54 PM |

Doc, also notice the removal of all of Might's comments from Guyenet's site. This speaks for itself, as to where the truth lies. Might is truly a wonder and knows what he's talking about.

Jack Kronk
8/15/2011 9:57:54 PM |

What does that mean, that the comments from Guyenet's site are removed? Stephan removed them, or Might removed them? I've traded comments with Might over there dozens of times.

Jack Kronk
8/15/2011 10:00:22 PM |

I just use pure Stevia powder, which is gauranteed to be at least 95% pure stevia crystals (like the liquid stevia, on in teh form of powder. The brand I use is Stevita. A tiny little 0.7 ounce conainer lasts FOREVER! You only need a tiny pinhc of it for coffee. It doesn't exchange well versus sugar as a substitute, but adding a little to whatever you might be baking or making can help with using less of whatever other sweetener you may need to use.

Janmar Delicana
8/16/2011 12:13:10 AM |

Dear Dr. Davis,
Itâ€™s a great pleasure to read your blog. I find your post very informative. Thank you for sharing.
As a reader, I consider your writing to be a great example of a quality and globally competitive output.
As a moderator for Physician Nexus (a community for physicians) I would like to share your genuine ideas and knowledge. With this you can gain 1000 physician readers on Nexus.
We would love for you to visit our community. It's free, takes seconds, and is designed for physicians only - completely free of industry bias and commercial interests.
Best,
Janmar Delicana
On behalf of the Physician Nexus Team
www.PhysicianNexus.com

Might-o'chondri-AL
8/17/2011 12:33:07 AM |

Stephan who hosts the WholeHealth blog is smarter than me & the removal of my comments there came from someone using my computer. These days I do not have the time to follow Stephan's blog, which has nothing to do with validity of his approach.

Stefan
8/31/2011 1:46:14 AM |

Marlene,
I buy it at SuperSupplements or at Whole Foods. Any nutritional supplements &vitamins stores should carry it. If you live in a place whch doesn't havenay -> use Amazon. It's simple .

Stefan
8/31/2011 1:50:21 AM |

Whoops - I thought you meant Stevia. Liquid Splenda is at amazon as well

Serge
9/2/2011 11:27:16 PM |

Dr. Davis--

I'd like to recommend ZSweet. It's a stevia/erythritol blend but isn't a Big Ag product like Cargill/Coca-Cola's Truvia or Pepsico/Monsanto-er-Merisant's PureVia.

It's funny how Stevia was banned by the FDA in the 80s, only to be given the GRAS label in 2008, which just happened to be the same year that Truvia was launched. Coincidence?

Dr. William Davis
9/2/2011 11:40:52 PM |

Hi, Serge-

I have no doubt that the clout of Cargill pushed Truvia through. I wasn't aware of ZSweet--thanks!

Susan
12/18/2011 6:10:37 AM |

I am absolutely thrilled to have found this blog. I've been extremely cautious of sugar and sweets since my mother was diagnosed with diabetes when I was a child. Unfortunately I did fall into the "healthy whole grains" trap for a while, but have kept my daily carbs between 50-100 for many years now. I like Stevia products, but unfortunately they leave me with a slight headache. I've been (sparingly) using Volcanic Agave Nectar for years, mostly in tea and for the occasional baked good. I understand that due to the rich soil in which it's grown, and minimal processing, volcanic blue agave has a lower glycemic index-load than other traditional agave nectars, at 27.

Am I doing myself harm by using it? I'd like to try the liquid Splenda, that contains no maltodextrin. Thank you Elenor and Stefan for mentioning it, but should I be concerned about its processing?

jpatti
5/27/2012 6:58:29 PM |

I'm not big on Truvia.

From what I've heard from other diabetics erthyritol doesn't have the GI side effects of most sugar alcohols and has a lesser effect on bg, but even so... I prefer a plain stevia powder.

I don't think erthyritol has been around long enough to know what it's side effects may be, that it doesn't raise bg much and doesn't cause GI distress isn't good enough. There's any number of other bad side effects that exist in the world besides those two.

Stevia is food.  Granted, the plain white stuff is relatively refined, but I still feel better about it than erthryitol.

Susan, agave nectar has almost no GI effect because it is fructose, not glucose.  It has MUCH more fructose than HFCS.  Search this blog for a long list of the bad stuff that fructose causes.  I'm a diabetic, and I'd seriously rather eat sugar than agave.

Anonymous
5/1/2008 5:12:00 PM |

The letter points out how critical adequate Vitamin D intake is when pregnant or lactating.

To add to that point: an unfortunately large number of women experience pre-eclampsia during pregnancy, which often is fatal without aggressive and rapid medical intervention. In Sept 2007, a study reported that women will low level of Vitamin D increased their likelihood of pre-eclampsia by FIVE-FOLD.

Also, perinatal cardio myopathy occurs with 1 in 3000 women in the USA, and the rate is hire for black women. It would not be surprising if it turns out this is linked to Vitamin D also.

With the massive amount of info and research supporting the importance of vitamin D, it seems that the failure to prescribe adequate amounts of vitamin D intake is nearly criminal.

Anonymous
5/2/2008 4:18:00 AM |

I was wondering if there is benefit to taking Vitamin D if ones level is in the normal range?

The best artificial sweeteners

Comments (23) -

Princess Dieter

pjnoir

Shreela

Gabriella Kadar

Michia

cancerclasses

Might-o'chondri-AL

Might-o'chondri-AL

Elenor

Dr. William Davis

Marlene

ibh

Anonymous

Jack Kronk

Jack Kronk

Janmar Delicana

Might-o'chondri-AL

Stefan

Stefan

Serge

Dr. William Davis

Susan

jpatti

Add comment

Vitamin D Newsletter reprinted

Comments (2) -

Anonymous

Anonymous

Add comment

Related posts

Comments (23) -

pjnoir

Shreela

Gabriella Kadar

Michia

Might-o'chondri-AL

Might-o'chondri-AL

Elenor

Marlene

ibh

Anonymous

Jack Kronk

Jack Kronk

Janmar Delicana

Might-o'chondri-AL

Stefan

Stefan

Susan

Add comment

Related posts

Comments (2) -

Anonymous

Anonymous

Add comment