 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Diabetes / May 2008Sweetener Question
Australian Question: I've been using a few different types of artificial sweeteners lately Stevia (Can't handle the atrocious aftertaste of this but i do have a big plastic container that cost a flamin fortune to use up) Hermesetas Good stuff for cooking and i tend to use a teaspoon in my coffee etc. Not too bad But i was recently give a container of a product calle BeLight (tablets) Absolutely brilliant for coffe and tea, nice little despenser etc. But reading the back for the ingredents i have the all disclosing line Contains Sweetener(951) Anyone got any idea of what the hell that is ? Greg > Australian Question: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Anyone got any idea of what the hell that is ? Aspartame - http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/newsroom/publications/choosingtherightstuff/food additivesnumeric1680.cfm >Contains Sweetener(951) > >Anyone got any idea of what the hell that is ? What Jan said. No problem. Same as the sweetener in most diet soft drinks. I just checked and it's in both forms of diet LA ice. Not in my Saxby's diet Ginger Beer though - quite tasty that. Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. d&e, metformin 1500mg, ezetrol 10mg Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter. -- http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com Latest:Is Testing Worthwhile? and Cambodia http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/2008/03/cambodia.html >>Contains Sweetener(951) >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > and Cambodia > http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/2008/03/cambodia.html Nah... Bundaburg Diet Dry Ginger... I do like the Saxby's Diet Pineapple though. >>>Contains Sweetener(951) >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Nah... Bundaburg Diet Dry Ginger... I think the Bundy one has more carbs than the Saxby's diet ginger beer. > I do like the Saxby's Diet Pineapple though. >>Contains Sweetener(951) >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I just checked and it's in both forms of diet LA ice. Not in > my Saxby's diet Ginger Beer though - quite tasty that. A couple of the fruit based mineral waters have Splenda (sucralose on that list Thunnus) but everything else is predominantly aspartame with the odd saccharine sweetened one or maybe that is cyclamate... I really don't take too much notice. "Thunnus Albacarus" <ThunnusAlbacarus@nothotmail.com> wrote in message > Stevia (Can't handle the atrocious aftertaste of this but i do have a big > plastic container that cost a flamin fortune to use up) Stevia is'nt artificial, its a pleasant sweet plant drink drunk by about 1 billion people. Its aftertaste is delicious. Its been banned in many western countries, allededly because the chemical industry wanted it out of the way when they came up with the artificial sweeteners. Stevia is a 1000 times sweeter than the white and brown sugar westerners use. >"Thunnus Albacarus" <ThunnusAlbacarus@nothotmail.com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >the way when they came up with the artificial sweeteners. Stevia is a 1000 >times sweeter than the white and brown sugar westerners use. after processing it is artificial.  SignatureMåck©® Deltec CoZmore Pumper Type 1 since 1975 http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org http://www.diabetic-talk.org http://www.insulin-pumpers.org http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/type1and2/ http://www.pandora.com enter "Jason & Demarco" http://www.ratbags.com/dechunging/ "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." ...Theodore Roosevelt (o ô) --ooO-(_)-Ooo-------------------- "I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." ....Bilbo Baggins DISCLAIMER If you find a posting or message from me offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate... . > "Thunnus Albacarus" <ThunnusAlbacarus@nothotmail.com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the way when they came up with the artificial sweeteners. Stevia is a 1000 > times sweeter than the white and brown sugar westerners use. oh, another conspiracy theory "because the chemical industry wanted it out of the way" ya, right Signaturekate type 1 since 1987 www.diabetic-talk.org "Tiger_Lily" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message > oh, another conspiracy theory "because the chemical industry wanted it out > of the way" Whats so strange? Is'nt conspiring a normal way of doing business for the multinationals and the pharacuetical industry? > "Tiger_Lily" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Whats so strange? Is'nt conspiring a normal way of doing business for the > multinationals and the pharacuetical industry? About as normal as the number of people who get sucked in by conspiracy theories and propoganda. Sadly, that is a lot of people. >> "Tiger_Lily" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > About as normal as the number of people who get sucked in by conspiracy > theories and propoganda. Sadly, that is a lot of people. You mean people such as the several hundred million that thought the nuclear weapons production proof was fake? I don't understand why you are so upset about the high probability (note the word probability) that a conspiracy was partly behind Stevia being banned. >>> "Tiger_Lily" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message >>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >the word probability) that a conspiracy was partly behind Stevia being >banned. Why don't you argue with people who care? You'll find them on other groups; not here. Please feel free to use any sweetener you wish. Just don't bore us with the reasons why. Will someone let me know if Shirley or Andy Q ever discuss something about diabetes so I can release them from the killfile. 'bye Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. d&e, metformin 1500mg, ezetrol 10mg Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter. -- http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com Latest:Is Testing Worthwhile? and Cambodia http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/2008/03/cambodia.html >Will someone let me know if Shirley or Andy Q ever discuss >something about diabetes so I can release them from the >killfile. Oops - sorry Andy Q; read -=Andy=- :-) Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. d&e, metformin 1500mg, ezetrol 10mg Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter. -- http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com Latest:Is Testing Worthwhile? and Cambodia http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/2008/03/cambodia.html "Alan S" <loralgtweightandcarbs@gmail.com> wrote in message > > Please feel free to use any sweetener you wish. Just don't > bore us with the reasons why. > > Will someone let me know if Shirley or Andy Q ever discuss > something about diabetes so I can release them from the > killfile. I'm new on this newsgroup. I had no idea people here were so hung up about Stevia and conspiracy theories. Don't you think there are political and economic aspects to health issues? My friends and I gave up smoking because we felt that multinationals and the government were conspiring ( knowingly or not) to screw us. Food is a political issue as well as a medical one. Put me on your killfile for pointing out absurd the aguement about Stevia is. > "Alan S" <loralgtweightandcarbs@gmail.com> wrote in message > >> Please feel free to use any sweetener you wish. Just don't [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > medical one. Put me on your killfile for pointing out absurd the aguement > about Stevia is. We get hit here hard on a regular basis by the anti-aspartame people who like to push stevia. So it's a real hot button topic. > "Alan S" <loralgtweightandcarbs@gmail.com> wrote in message > >> Please feel free to use any sweetener you wish. Just don't [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > because we felt that multinationals and the government were conspiring ( > knowingly or not) to screw us. And not because you feel that smoking is extremely bad for you in many ways? "Ozgirl" <are_we_there_yet@maccas.com> wrote in message > And not because you feel that smoking is extremely bad for you in many > ways? I think that knowing that something is bad for you is often not enough. There needs to be some kind of external encouragment to change, for example changing diet when diabetic is easier when you have people on newsgroups to talk to. With smoking we happend to come to the conclusion that the government wanted the cig tax and that the cig companies were awesomely powerful and manipulatitive, so quiting smoking took on a political dimension. > "Ozgirl" <are_we_there_yet@maccas.com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > awesomely powerful and manipulatitive, so quiting smoking took on a > political dimension. In Australia they raised the tax to hopefully prevent people from smoking if the cost was too high. If you need some external encouragement go and work in a hospice for a while and take a look at the patients dying from the effects of cancer from smoking. It doesn't just hit the lungs (anything from the lips to the anus and everything in between plus limb loss and heart attacks/strokes) and in my experience the death from smoking cancers is a zillion times worse than any other cancer. And strange as it might seem to you, the patients are rarely elderly. If you want to believe the worst part of smoking is a fictitious political thing then go right ahead. You are sounding dumber and dumber with every word you utter.` "Ozgirl" <are_we_there_yet@maccas.com> wrote in message > In Australia they raised the tax to hopefully prevent people from smoking > if the cost was too high. If you need some external encouragement go and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > smoking cancers is a zillion times worse than any other cancer. And > strange as it might seem to you, the patients are rarely elderly. COPD, throat cancer and heart failure killed three of my smoking friends. That did'nt stop me or any one else that I knew from stopping smoking. Most people don't give up a bad habbit because they saw someone die as a consequence of that habbit. If people could alter their behaviour in that way then there would be no overweight people and hardly any one on this newsgroup. You are sounding dumber and dumber with every > word you utter.` Is it neccessary to be insulting? > "Ozgirl" <are_we_there_yet@maccas.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > way then there would be no overweight people and hardly any one on this > newsgroup. But you would still prefer to blame the Govt and call it political? Your choice to smoke or not has nothing to do with anyone but yourself. But you would still prefer to blame the Govt and call it political? Your > choice to smoke or not has nothing to do with anyone but yourself. Partly blaming government and multinationals helped us to quit, and we did our bit (however small) to change social attitudes to smoking. As much my choice of being a heroin addict, an alcoholic or overweight and so on. >Is it neccessary to be insulting? Shirley, My take of this group: 1. Yes they are insulting. 2. They do not talk about Stevia because - and I am guessing here - they work for Aspartame, Splenda and Sacharin. [Seriously, it is the only explanation that makes sense at this point]. 3. They pretend that this discussion about Stevia is your fault - and they are sick and tired of it! For some strange reason, it is the only subject that makes them sick and tired! No other subject causes their heads to explode - stevia does it! 4. They will never - ever - ignore a thread about stevia. For some reason it attracts them - sort of like flies to the light. As if they have no will - the light turns on and the flies come. Just mention Stevia and the flies land! 5. Can they ignore a subject about stevia and leave you alone? Yes, but the choose not to. It is because of the fly effect - They lose all will and turn into flies the moment they see stevia. And they land all over you instantly! And it is your fault - the fact that they did not ignore the stevia thread is your fault! 6. In fact, they can killfile you for talking about stevia but they don't do that either - because, and this reinforces my theory - they are shills. 7. For them, the idea that Stevia can help diabetics is an anathema and they will tell you bluntly that they like Aspartame or Splenda better and yell at you for causing all this trouble and question your sanity. 8. I reached the conclusion that these people are not diabetics. They might pretend to be diabetics but they seem to be shills for artificial sweeteners. 9. Did I say they are rude and insulting? Seriously, the reaction to stevia from these people is not normal. I have been on UseNet since the beginning and have been following this group since late February and I have no doubt that some of them are shills - there is no other explanation for this nonsense. Especially for something that can help the diabetic condition. -=Andy=- Grow up and start having diabetic discussions. Quite frankly, a lot of us have been here 10 years or more and the "subject" of artificial sweeteners has been done to death, especially by the whack job nutters like Betty Martini and her moronic followers. Everyone chooses how or what they will sweeten with. If the subject is so important to you go and chase up Betty Martini. Otherwise, it would be nice to see you contribute to the topic once in a while. Just let it go and move on, or not. "-=Andy=-" <Sorry@Noaddress.Com> wrote in message <snipped childish garbage> > If the subject is so important to you go and chase up Betty >Martini. Otherwise, it would be nice to see you contribute to the topic once >in a while. > >Just let it go and move on, or not. If you don't think that the subject of Stevia is important, why are you posting in this thread? I mean whether you agree or disagree with the use of Stevia, this subject is of interest to diabetics and it is of interest to me. If you are not interested in Stevia, why don't YOU "let it go" and YOU move on? Hello???? Look at you Ozgirl! You and your friends get wound up and bent out of shape when you talk about Stevia and then you have the nerve to come and tell those of us who are interested to move on? Did you guys decide that you own the place now? -=Andy=- > Look at you Ozgirl! You and your friends get wound up and bent out of > shape when you talk about Stevia and then you have the nerve to come > and tell those of us who are interested to move on? Did you guys > decide that you own the place now? As a matter of fact, Ozgirl and I *do* own the place. So mind your manners. Susan > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > So mind your manners. lol > >> x-no-archive: yes [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > lol > Remember the muffler salesman who was going to sell Herbal Death to diabetics and get rich? He came to the conclusion that I owned the group and that everybody here just did what I said.!! Boy did HE have a wrong number >>> x-no-archive: yes >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Boy did HE have a wrong number But it was funny! :) >>> x-no-archive: yes >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Boy did HE have a wrong number I thought we did all do what you say :) (salutes Ted..) lol. >Remember the muffler salesman who was going to sell Herbal Death to >diabetics and get rich? He came to the conclusion that I owned the >group and that everybody here just did what I said.!! But you do! It's just that you're wise enough to be selective who you give orders to...and we are wise enough to know which orders to ignore... >Boy did HE have a wrong number :-) Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. d&e, metformin 1500mg, ezetrol 10mg Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter. -- http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com Latest:What to Eat Until You Get Your Meter. and Cambodia http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/2008/03/cambodia.html >>Remember the muffler salesman who was going to sell Herbal Death to >>diabetics and get rich? He came to the conclusion that I owned the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >d&e, metformin 1500mg, ezetrol 10mg >Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter. And then there's all these *silent* partners -- giving orders from the shadows ..... pssst.....Alan....to your left....No No....your OTHER left..... >x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Susan I consider myself a tenant... Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. d&e, metformin 1500mg, ezetrol 10mg Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter. -- http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com Latest:Is Testing Worthwhile? and Cambodia http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/2008/03/cambodia.html >>x-no-archive: yes >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I consider myself a tenant... Where's your rent then? :) Ozgirl the Slum Lord >>>x-no-archive: yes >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Ozgirl the Slum Lord Paid in kind...a word here, a snarl at a spammer there... Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. d&e, metformin 1500mg, ezetrol 10mg Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter. -- http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com Latest:Is Testing Worthwhile? and Cambodia http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/2008/03/cambodia.html >>Is it neccessary to be insulting? > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > shills - there is no other explanation for this nonsense. Especially > for something that can help the diabetic condition. Perhaps you have not been hit by the Aspartame trolls in the other newsgroups where you post. I have. So has Ted and some others. One person tied up our inboxes with a bot that posted the same message over and over again. I could not use my e-mail for 2 days. My ISP shut him down, but he keeps coming back with new accounts. So yeah. Some of us are a tad touchy on that. I'm not a shill for anyone but I am anti-stevia. I just don't believe it is safe to use. -=Andy=- wrote in message ... >2. They do not talk about Stevia because - and I am guessing here - >they work for Aspartame, Splenda and Sacharin. [Seriously, it is >the only explanation that makes sense at this point]. LMAO Cheri -=Andy=- wrote:<spam snipped> >-=Andy=- wrote:<spam snipped> >> As a kid I used to drink sassafras tea. The truth is we did not have money to buy the nickel drinks. I did dig and sell to the root dealers. It was the flavor used in Root Beer. In the early fifties it was discovered that this item was very cancer causing. Later a Root Beer was introduced that was a similar flavor but a different item. WE must be cautious in embracing potentially dangerous items. It is a sad felling later if you screw up. I was brave in 1957 and not a day goes by that I do not cuss my decision to undertake the requested recovery mission to Ground Zero to recover test items. You cannot back out of a health mistake. I just had a scare with my wife about cancer. It is a lesson for me to heed in these scares on items that have not stood the test of time. I am disgusted with people that take the time to mess up an important group with baiting nonsense. ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- >>-=Andy=- wrote:<spam snipped> >>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > I am disgusted with people that take the time to > mess up an important group with baiting nonsense. My uncle lied to get into the army as a young teenager. When still too young he was in one of the first units to go into Hiroshima after the bomb. He paid for the rest of his life. >>Is it neccessary to be insulting? > [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > -=Andy=- Cheers, nicely put, I may have been a bit provocative and casual in some of the things that I said earlier on, I would have been a lot more cautious had I known about the strong feelings something so trivial could arouse! Of on holiday now, probably just as well, I have this weird desire to keep making postings to this thread!! -=Andy=- your tin foil hat is on crooked.......... the messages from outerspace are getting into your head, please straighted your tin foil hat! >> Is it neccessary to be insulting? > [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > -=Andy=- On Sun, 4 May 2008 09:26:58 +0100, in <IKOdnT6dw8PS7oDVnZ2dnUVZ8vudnZ2d@bt.com> "shirley" <shirley@spamhere.com> wrote: >I'm new on this newsgroup. Are you diabetic? >I had no idea people here were so hung up about >Stevia and conspiracy theories. Mostly people are just tired of endless discussions about Stevia, when they go nowhere & tend to involve how hairs are or are not split. As to conspiracy theories, many people believe that there are a substantial number of issues that involve, for just one example, who funds research & what their product is, and so, how likely is it that they are going to fund any research that is going to lose them sales? However, they probably don't speak of companies conspiring to screw us, but that in their quest for more of the almighty dollar they could care less what ramifications they promote. People who think we are being crazy to think things like that, sure, they may chide us for believing in conspiracy theories. >Don't you think there are political and economic aspects to health issues? Yep. Not a new idea here either. >My friends and I gave up smoking >because we felt that multinationals and the government were conspiring ( >knowingly or not) to screw us. Why didn't you just quit because it is bad for you?!! SignatureDonnaB shallotpeel : ^> USA <*> new WIN Vista user 06-07-06 Diagnosis T2 HbA1c 8.1, D&E & Metformin 500mg Current ................... HbA1c 6.3 "Connection is everything." - Tagline for THE VISITOR [2007] >On Sun, 4 May 2008 09:26:58 +0100, in ><IKOdnT6dw8PS7oDVnZ2dnUVZ8vudnZ2d@bt.com> "shirley" <shirley@spamhere.com> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Mostly people are just tired of endless discussions about Stevia, when they go >nowhere & tend to involve how hairs are or are not split. Lucky you didn't say how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or we'd have got all the other nut jobs in oops > >> On Sun, 4 May 2008 09:26:58 +0100, in [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Is that IRONy? >> >>> On Sun, 4 May 2008 09:26:58 +0100, in [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >Is that IRONy? ROFL a very Andy remark >"Alan S" <loralgtweightandcarbs@gmail.com> wrote in message > >> Please feel free to use any sweetener you wish. Just don't [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >I'm new on this newsgroup. So that's the reason you don't know hat we've done the artificial sweetener crap to death, right? > I had no idea people here were so hung up about Stevia and > conspiracy theories. If, by "people here", you mean -=Andy=-, yes, he's a troll with several conspiracy theories. If you mean those that are trying to tell him, without success, that we just don't give a rat's a.s about whether or not he agrees with anyone else on what sweeteners he uses, then no, people here are not hung up about Stevia, at all. > Don't you think there are political and economic aspects to health > issues? Don't care. Not a bit. Not even a smidgeon of an iota of care resides in my mind about political and economic aspects of which sweeteners are offered for sale, or which ones anyone but me uses. > My friends and I gave up smoking because we felt that > multinationals and the government were conspiring (knowingly or not) > to screw us. Un-f.cking-believable! You accuse the posters in this group of being hung up on Stevia and conspiracy theories, and you come right out and tell us you are a moron with a conspiracy theory about tobacco. > Food is a political issue as well as a medical one. If that's true, I don't care. I can make my own mind up about what to put into my body. You should too. > Put me on your killfile for pointing out absurd the aguement >about Stevia is. No, you're going into my killfile because you're stupid. SignatureLarry, T2, Saskatchewan, Canada. DX 24 Aug 07. D&E Metformin 2000mg, Ramipril, Simvastatin Dx A1c 8.1 : Latest 5.1 (4 Mar 08) > No, you're going into my killfile because you're stupid. Well that about sums that up. Conspiracies about tobaco ... bugger me. >>> "Tiger_Lily" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message >>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > the word probability) that a conspiracy was partly behind Stevia being > banned. I don't really care either way. You were the one who came out of nowhere with all guns blazing. I am happy to discuss diabetes personally. Are you type 1 or 2? How are your numbers? > "Tiger_Lily" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message >> oh, another conspiracy theory "because the chemical industry wanted it out >> of the way" > > Whats so strange? Is'nt conspiring a normal way of doing business for the > multinationals and the pharacuetical industry? bwha ha ha ha if you say so Signaturekate type 1 since 1987 www.diabetic-talk.org > "Tiger_Lily" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > have you seen a good psychiatrist recently?? NO conspiracy's is NOT the normal way of doing business. Lots of reasons, but talking to idiot conspiracy nuts is not worth wasting ones breath "ted rosenberg" <tedrosenberg@iname.com> wrote in message > have you seen a good psychiatrist recently?? Don't trust them, mine keeps beamimg funny thoughts at me via my ipod. >> "Thunnus Albacarus" <ThunnusAlbacarus@nothotmail.com> wrote in message > >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >ya, right >kate >type 1 since 1987 >www.diabetic-talk.org Oh.... Diabetic Kate against Stevia..... again... Hey Kate, why is it difficult for you to understand that Apsrtame, Splenda and Sacharin, might have something to do with the case against Stevia? Is someone paying you to post this nonsense? Do you do anything else around here besides attacking Stevia? Is it your full time job now? I mean if some diabetics support it, why attack it? And in a diabetes forum of all places! Can we simply disagree on this without making a big freaging deal about it every time someone writes about Stevia? Again. are you duabetic, or do you pretend to be one in order to attack Stevia? -=Andy=- "-=Andy=-" <Sorry@Noaddress.Com> wrote in message > Oh.... Diabetic Kate against Stevia..... again... > Hey Kate, why is it difficult for you to understand that Apsrtame, > Splenda and Sacharin, might have something to do with the case [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > -=Andy=- Upps, I did'nt know Stevia was so passion arousing. When I was in China I heard it told as a fact that Stevia being banned in parts of the west was very much a political thing to do with the chemical industry lobby. >Upps, I did'nt know Stevia was so passion arousing. When I was in China I >heard it told as a fact that Stevia being banned in parts of the west was >very much a political thing to do with the chemical industry lobby. Seems that too many "facts" are initially "heard it told as a fact". I have no agenda for or against Stevia or aspartame or any sweetener - except, possibly, sugar and HFCS. In fact, I wrote a post quite a while ago commenting on some interesting papers showing possible benefits from Stevia. However, we do get bombarded here at times by anti-aspartame kooks who tend to first appear as Stevia advocates. That has led to a skepticism and, with some, a rather hostile over-reaction to anyone who appears here touting Stevia. I tend to join the skeptics when the Stevia promotion (or aspartame warnings) come from a newly-arrived poster who seems to concentrate on little else about diabetes. To me the whole subject is a nuisance digression from the real problems of managing diabetes. I wrote this six years ago in my weight loss advice: http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/2006/10/weight-loss-cooking-and-eating-plan.html "I won’t buy into the arguments about sweeteners. People say some may give you cancer. Do you think that worries a Diabetic/CLLer? Find the sweetener and lo-cal drink that you like (or that you dislike least) and consider all things flavoured with sugar as poison. If you must eat them, make it a special and rare treat." I've learnt a lot since then, but I've had no reason to change that position. Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. d&e, metformin 1500mg, ezetrol 10mg Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter. -- http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com Latest:Is Testing Worthwhile? and Cambodia http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/2008/03/cambodia.html > "-=Andy=-" <Sorry@Noaddress.Com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > heard it told as a fact that Stevia being banned in parts of the west was > very much a political thing to do with the chemical industry lobby. no........ it has to do with the health departments of many countries studying the effects of Stevia and finding that it has a negative health affect i wish i could find the link............ rapid heart beat (too rapid) and heart attacks as a diabetic is to be considered as if they have already had their first heart attack, i would like to ensure that my sweetener didn't CAUSE heart attacks you have a friend with Andy, he's new here and he thinks he can push us around i have 2 words for him, and it isn't Merry Christmas Signaturekate type 1 since 1987 www.diabetic-talk.org > no........ it has to do with the health departments of many countries > studying the effects of Stevia and finding that it has a negative health > affect Not really. Not in any credibly conclusive way. > i wish i could find the link............ rapid heart beat (too rapid) > and heart attacks I wish you could, too. I've provided scientific citations and a link to a wiki with numerous citations demonstrating that the arguments against stevia such as yours are unfounded. That doesn't mean I like it or use it; I don't. I'm just tired of the insane vitriol that gets stirred up; lots of heat, no light from all of you. Susan > "-=Andy=-" <Sorry@Noaddress.Com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > I heard it told as a fact that Stevia being banned in parts of the west > was very much a political thing to do with the chemical industry lobby. China is not known for accurate opinions about how things are in the west. For example, they seem to think that sending us spam is a good idea. > "-=Andy=-" <Sorry@Noaddress.Com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Wouldn't take that for a good source WHERE in China?, and told by WHO? Do NOT trust Chinese sources unless you can verify. But, WHY you would believe a stupid statement by someone in China is beyond me. >> "-=Andy=-" <Sorry@Noaddress.Com> wrote in message > >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >But, WHY you would believe a stupid statement by someone in China is >beyond me. WE see the bulk of people are idiots and a few evangalists or shills have greater knowledge than educated people with good scentific methods Who are wrong?. Some of us think a person should be held responsible for all the things they do when harm results. The plain truth is we do not know much and depend on the accumulated lore. Salesmen will positively say anything to sell. As a person applying for a car sales job was told "You will never be a car salesmen until you learn to lie." ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- >Again. are you duabetic, or do you pretend to be one in order to >attack Stevia? Kate's been here a darn sight longer than you mate, in fact she was here before I arrived six years ago. She has no need to convince anyone of her credibility. You, on the other hand, do. Ad hominem attacks weaken the attacker's position every time. Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. d&e, metformin 1500mg, ezetrol 10mg Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter. -- http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com Latest:Is Testing Worthwhile? and Cambodia http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/2008/03/cambodia.html >>Again. are you duabetic, or do you pretend to be one in order to >>attack Stevia? > >Kate's been here a darn sight longer than you mate, in fact >she was here before I arrived six years ago. Really? Then why is she attacking Stevia? If Stevia can be helpful to even a few diabetics then why attack it? I do not understand this. Do you? This is a diabetic forum, and this woman attacks something that can benefit some if not all, diabetics. If she was here before you arrived, six years ago, it does not answer these questions. These questions need answers and the fact that she was here six years ago is irrelevant. >She has no need to convince anyone of her credibility. > >You, on the other hand, do. She lacks credibility because she is attacking something that can benefit those suffering from diabetes. I am simply questioning her motives - simply put: Why is she doing this? Is she really a diabetic? I am sorry but this is not a question of credibility. It is a question of common sense. -=Andy=- > She lacks credibility because she is attacking something that can > benefit those suffering from diabetes. I am simply questioning her [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I am sorry but this is not a question of credibility. It is a > question of common sense. Yes, she's a diabetic well known to us, and she obviously holds a different opinion than yours (and mine) about stevia. Get over it. Susan >>>Again. are you duabetic, or do you pretend to be one in order to >>>attack Stevia? [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > I am sorry but this is not a question of credibility. It is a > question of common sense. She attacks the lunatics who think there is a reason to constantly compare Stevia and artificial sweeteners. Who really give's a rat's in here what anyone takes to sweeten their coffee? It is the idiots who try everything they can to prove that one or the other is dangerous - almost always the fly by nights, those we have never seen in here before. Usually producing reams of "studies" and web links that ultimately take away from the diabetic support here. If you had bothered to read this group before starting in here you would know that. I and others use Aspartame, Susan and others use Stevia, we live happily alongside each other. Stop making waves where there aren't any. > I and others use Aspartame, Susan and others use Stevia, we live happily > alongside each other. Stop making waves where there aren't any. Correction: I NEVER use stevia. In fact, I doubt if I use sweeteners for anything more than a handful of times per year, and then it's xylitol or erythritol or isomalt or a combination. Only reason I get into these discussions is to inject some rational discussion and to provide scientific citations to counter the mouth foaming lunacy on both sides. Susan > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > discussion and to provide scientific citations to counter the mouth > foaming lunacy on both sides. I use aspartame because I drink Colas but I rarely use sweeteners except for the occasional coffee. Then I use Splenda because I can't "taste" it. I started to drink artificially sweetened drinks 35 years. I really don't understand the hoo-hah. Susan wrote in message >Correction: I NEVER use stevia. In fact, I doubt if I use sweeteners >for anything more than a handful of times per year, and then it's >xylitol or erythritol or isomalt or a combination. >Susan I'm down to Sweetzfree now, rarely. I'm not concerned with the safety issue of Stevia at all, since just about everything has its detractors. I just don't like the taste. :-) Cheri >>> Again. are you duabetic, or do you pretend to be one in order to >>> attack Stevia? [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > -=Andy=- oh Andy, the spin master i haven't attacked Stevia YOU came here and said 'it's the best thing for you' and i gave a link indicating that it's TOTALLY banned in the EU and a comment that the US FDA only allows it as a supplement, not as a sweetener good luck with your Stevia how is your diabetes doing? what was your last A1c? do you have type 1 or type 2? what meds do you take (include BP, Chol, thyroid, etc) i would ask you what benefits stevia has for a diabetic, but i really don't care to hear anything more from you about stevia :) Signaturekate type 1 since 1987 www.diabetic-talk.org >>> "Thunnus Albacarus" <ThunnusAlbacarus@nothotmail.com> wrote in message > >>> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > -=Andy=- oh look, it's Andy the Stevia pushing newbie again, questioning me as to if i'm really a diabetic......... AND he swears that he monitored the newsgroup before he made his first post right Andy so, are you here to PUSH STEVIA on unsuspecting diabetics? http://www.food.gov.uk/foodindustry/imports/banned_restricted/stevioside Stevioside import ban Wednesday 17 March 2004 Stevioside is a very strong sweetener, made from the stevia plant. It is 250 to 300 times sweeter than sucrose and has been used for a number of years as a sweetener in South America, Asia, Japan and China. But stevia and stevioside and food products containing them are not allowed to be sold in the UK or the rest of the EU. This is because they did not pass EU safety assessments. So you cannot import any food products or supplements containing stevia or stevioside. please note that this link is dated 2004 AND you will even find this link in the newsgroup in repsonse to Stevia pushers Signaturekate type 1 since 1987 www.diabetic-talk.org -=Andy=- wrote in message <76gp14d47arcu4qtoiid8u1mj2e3qi25jm@4ax.com>... >Oh.... Diabetic Kate against Stevia..... again... > >Hey Kate, why is it difficult for you to understand that Apsrtame, >Splenda and Sacharin, might have something to do with the case >against Stevia? Is someone paying you to post this nonsense? Is someone paying you? >Do you do anything else around here besides attacking Stevia? Is it >your full time job now? Do you do anything else around here besides defending Stevia and insulting Kate? Is it your full time job now? >I mean if some diabetics support it, why attack it? And in a >diabetes forum of all places! Can we simply disagree on this without >making a big freaging deal about it every time someone writes about >Stevia? I don't know Andy, can we? What's your best guess, since you've made a couple of very rude attacks on Kate over her type 1 diabetes in Stevia threads. The mind boggles. Cheri >-=Andy=- wrote in message >>I mean if some diabetics support it, why attack it? And in a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Cheri Cheri, I haven't used Stevia for years but I plan to go back to it now that I am diabetic. What I don't understand is the constant and irrational attacks on Stevia - and the intensity of these attacks is mind boggling. And the question is WHY? If Stevia can be beneficial to diabetics, why don't they leave it alone? If nothing else why not give it the benefit of the doubt? Frankly, I do not understand this - it is as if they are on a Jihad to attack Stevia every step of the way. Hey, if you don't like it, don't use it, but why attack it and why the venom? If the subject of stevia doesn't interest these people why don't they move on and start some other thread? Instead, they make it a point to start a fight and then blame those who frankly are open minded about it and are truely interested in the use of Stevia - and in a diabetic forum of all places! So to answer your question, I am trying to understand this irrationality and the only thing that makes sense so far is that the attacks on Stevia come from shills. In a nutshell, these people are attacking all those of us who are diabetics. This, I find offensive and sickening. -=Andy=- >>-=Andy=- wrote in message >>>I mean if some diabetics support it, why attack it? And in a [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > In a nutshell, these people are attacking all those of us who are > diabetics. This, I find offensive and sickening. I won't use something that causes cell mutation. And I've been told it tastes bad. "-=Andy=-" <Sorry@Noaddress.Com> wrote in message > If Stevia can be beneficial to diabetics, why don't they leave it > alone? If nothing else why not give it the benefit of the doubt? Not that I really care one way or the other about Stevia, why is it beneficial to diabetics? >Not that I really care one way or the other about Stevia, why is it >beneficial to diabetics? If you don't care about stevia, then why are you posting in this thread and wasting bandwidth? And no, I really don't know why stevia is beneficial to diabetics - Is sugar beneficial, you think? -=Andy=- >>Not that I really care one way or the other about Stevia, why is it >>beneficial to diabetics? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > And no, I really don't know why stevia is beneficial to diabetics - > Is sugar beneficial, you think? It is if you're having a hypo! :) >>Not that I really care one way or the other about Stevia, why is it >>beneficial to diabetics? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > And no, I really don't know why stevia is beneficial to diabetics - > Is sugar beneficial, you think? Andy you were the one that claimed it was beneficial and therefore should be spoken about. Again, why is it beneficial to diabetics? >>Not that I really care one way or the other about Stevia, why is it >>beneficial to diabetics? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >-=Andy=- Why are you disrupting the group with your pet item. This sweetener has a bad reputation. Most of the coverage of it is from those people that make money off of it. Most likely they do not consider my health. Do what you want and keep it private. It is obvious that you are not posting for advice. ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- -=Andy=- wrote in message <8jss14lkllqb5hv08ir98gshhv2e92pvr0@4ax.com>... >So to answer your question, I am trying to understand this >irrationality and the only thing that makes sense so far is that the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >-=Andy=- I have said many times, that it's not a safety issue with me, though it may be for some, I don't care for the taste, so I don't use it. However, what I find silly is that you would even suggest that a few diabetics in a newsgroup would be shilling for the two most popular sweeteners in use everywhere. Do you really think that Splenda and Aspartame need help getting the word out from us to boost their sales? LOL Cheri > Do you really think that Splenda and >Aspartame need help getting the word out from us to boost their sales? >LOL > >Cheri No they don't Cheri - they don't need help getting the word out. But make no mistake about it, they can recognize a competitor that can decimate their profits and shut them down from light years away. -=Andy=- >> Do you really think that Splenda and >>Aspartame need help getting the word out from us to boost their sales? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > But make no mistake about it, they can recognize a competitor that can > decimate their profits and shut them down from light years away. Yeah, Stevia is a huge threat! You can grow your own for goodness sake. I guess home grown veggies are a huge threat to the commercially sold ones too. Stevia is no threat to the artificial sweetener manufacturers. >Yeah, Stevia is a huge threat! You can grow your own for goodness sake. I >guess home grown veggies are a huge threat to the commercially sold ones >too. Stevia is no threat to the artificial sweetener manufacturers. Bingo, you have just won my unused supply of Stevia. I hope it has a long shelf life, since both products have been sitting there for years. :-) Cheri > >> Yeah, Stevia is a huge threat! You can grow your own for goodness [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Cheri > He doesn't need any more he is a classic spammer. You notice that not only does he not talk about anything else here he has NO posts on ANY newsgroup except these >>> Yeah, Stevia is a huge threat! You can grow your own for goodness >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > he is a classic spammer. You notice that not only does he not talk about > anything else here he has NO posts on ANY newsgroup except these Don't encourage him to copy Chung's method of posting to more newsgroups, then. -=Andy=- wrote in message ... >> Do you really think that Splenda and >>Aspartame need help getting the word out from us to boost their sales? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >-=Andy=- OK Andy, this one is just for you. I hate Splenda as it leaves a nasty aftertaste with me, except the liquid Splenda. I wish they would make liquid Splenda readily available, but they haven't, so all you Splenda shills, please take that under advisement as a way to fend of Stevia. ;-) Cheri > >f.cking spammer sni pped> > -=Andy=- "-=Andy=-" <Sorry@Noaddress.Com> wrote in message > In a nutshell, these people are attacking all those of us who are > diabetics. This, I find offensive and sickening. You know the stupid thing here Andy? Some poor bugger innocently posts that he has some Stevia to give away because it tastes like crap. In jumps shirley from god knows where immediately saying Stevia is not artificial! Stevia the plant drink tastes wonderful! All the OP said was that it tasted awful to him, so what?? Why on earth did shirley have to come charging in like that? How about, oh you don't like it? I (shirley) do personally, each to their own. First of all she makes sure the OP knows he has stuffed up by lumping it into the artificial sweetener category but then goes on to say that Stevia is a plant drink? Then follows up with saying the "alleged" reason it was banned was because the chemical industry wanted it out of the way... Then you come along claiming it is beneficial for diabetics. Neither of you have put up anything more than a half-arsed argument supporting your claims but feel terribly offended! If you had been watching this group as you say for so long you would have noticed that when a claim is made about anything it is expected that the claimant provides some credible cites for their claims. Do you or shirley have anything to offer here other than smoke and mirrors? And where on earth were you "all of us" being attacked? You attacked Kate for starters You have nicely made a mountain out of a molehill. Congratulations. Now, the rest of us can get back to diabetes. If you and shirley want to argue conspiracies, politics, perceived slights and misconceptions amongst yourselves then go for it. >>-=Andy=- wrote in message >>>I mean if some diabetics support it, why attack it? And in a [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > If Stevia can be beneficial to diabetics, why don't they leave it > alone? If nothing else why not give it the benefit of the doubt? I find that using no sweetener at all makes it easier to tell when you've been served food with sugar added. It also makes it easier to stay out of the arguments about stevia. Robert Miles wrote<snip> > I find that using no sweetener at all makes it easier to tell when > you've been served food with sugar added. It also makes it > easier to stay out of the arguments about stevia. > > Nah, I rarely use sweetner. I just HATE Momma Betty and her spammers >Robert Miles wrote<snip> >> I find that using no sweetener at all makes it easier to tell when [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >Nah, I rarely use sweetner. I just HATE Momma Betty and her spammers I have never checked on her because her motives are obvous. Accidently saw her on a TV show once. Weird. Yes, Ted a lot of my life has been compromised by diabetes. I hate all trying to exploit this illness. People like this should be selling junk jewelry at some fair. ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- > >> [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > Well, Momma Betty's sock puppet keeps it up f.ck off spammer > oh, another conspiracy theory "because the chemical industry wanted it > out of the way" > > ya, right Uh, no. Here in the U.S. of A, we call that free market capitalism. Same way drug companies got hold of all of our treatment guidelines. Susan >"Thunnus Albacarus" <ThunnusAlbacarus@nothotmail.com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >the way when they came up with the artificial sweeteners. Stevia is a 1000 >times sweeter than the white and brown sugar westerners use. Is there some confusion in your mind about 'taste'? Are you under the impression that everyone's opinion of every taste must match yours? SignatureLarry, T2, Saskatchewan, Canada. DX 24 Aug 07. D&E Metformin 2000mg, Ramipril, Simvastatin Dx A1c 8.1 : Latest 5.1 (4 Mar 08) shirley wrote in message ... >Stevia is'nt artificial, its a pleasant sweet plant drink drunk by about 1 >billion people. Its aftertaste is delicious. No, it's not, the aftertaste is vile to me. Cheri > shirley wrote in message ... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > No, it's not, the aftertaste is vile to me. But since when was it a plant drink? > Australian Question: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Am herb banned in most of the world. Believed to cause long tern genetic damage, Pushed by scammers like Betty "Martini" and crew, and supported by stupid duped like MissInformation Susan > Hermesetas Good stuff for cooking and i tend to use a teaspoon in my > coffee etc. Not too bad > Oz brand of saccharin - > But i was recently give a container of a product calle BeLight (tablets) > Absolutely brilliant for coffe and tea, nice little despenser etc. > > But reading the back for the ingredents i have the all disclosing line > Pepsi makes a drink in Mexico called Belight, and something similar is made in France. . Both seem to contain Splenda, but neither are tabs. Belight is a software company acquired by Microsoft, but I don't think the Gates has gone into sweeteners. > Contains Sweetener(951) > can't help you there > Anyone got any idea of what the hell that is ? > > Greg >> Australian Question: >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > damage, Pushed by scammers like Betty "Martini" and crew, and supported > by stupid duped like MissInformation Susan You mean American and Western world, debatable wether thats the majority. Not many food stuffs don't cause genetic damage. Stevia probably is ok for Asians, but when taken to the USA or Europe would probably be consumed on the 50 kilo per person per year basis. Artificial sweeteners - around for a few decades, won't know about genetic damage etc for another 10-20 years at least. >> Hermesetas Good stuff for cooking and i tend to use a teaspoon in my >> coffee etc. Not too bad [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >> >> Greg >>> Australian Question: >>> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] >>> >>> Greg Cripes , what happend, Why all the angst against Stevia ? My only complaint is it tastes shocking, try a coffe, with sugar, and then a sip of one with Stevia, Damn that stuff tastes bad. Sweet it may be, but it is damn expensive, and does taste shocking. Other than that it is an artificial sweetener, and i'm sure some people love the taste. (but some people also love caramalized beatles for a snack) Greg >Cripes , what happend, Why all the angst against Stevia ? My only >complaint is it tastes shocking, try a coffe, with sugar, and then a sip [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Greg Paul would probably taste sweet, but I suspect Ringo would be a little bitter. Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. d&e, metformin 1500mg, ezetrol 10mg Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter. -- http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com Latest:Is Testing Worthwhile? and Cambodia http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/2008/03/cambodia.html > >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > \ > No, I mean MOST of the world, of course countries like Syria, Bangladesh Angola and the like don't count - they have NO regulation It is permitted in Korea, Peru, and Japan where it is used in EXTREMELY small quantities as a sweetener in pickled radish. You probably put more in a cup of coffee than most Koreans would consume in three months. There is no reason to suspect any problems in artificial sweetness, as they have been tested and retested, and used in huge quantities bu y hundreds of millions of people for between 20 years (splenda) and 80 years (saccharine). There are a lot of strong reasons to believe that Stevia is dangerous. AND, they were banned in Europe BEFORE Aspartame was even dreamed about. Much Stevia sold in the US is just plain anise flavored sugar, so not too worry about genetic damage. The only people to worry about that are diabetics. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo |