Has anyone seen any good studies on the safety level of "Monk Fruit Sweetener? (Serious question.)
Posted on 04/08/2024 1:54:23 PM PDT by ransomnote
SNIP
Regarding blood biochemistry, the results were pronounced:
- Stevia administration caused a significant reduction in hemoglobin and hematocrit levels, and RBCs (red blood cells) count, compared to control groups.
- In female mice, stevia showed a significant decrease in WBCs (white blood cells) count.
In reference to liver health, the results were again extreme:
- Stevia administration increased alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) levels. (AST and ALT are two of the liver enzymes doctors look at when trying to figure out if you have a problem with your liver.)
- Levels of liver triglycerides and cholesterol in male mice groups increased.
- Stevia significantly elevated liver cholesterol levels in both male and female mice groups.
The results for kidney health were also condemning:
- Stevia affected urea levels, but more so in male subjects, whereas creatinine levels were more elevated in female subjects. (The former can indicate kidney injury or disease in lab testing, whereas the latter indicates kidney problems, oftentimes a blocked urinary tract.)
- Damage to the kidneys upon dissection (and studies of the samples) showed congested blood vessels after 16 weeks of administration.
In addition to all these somewhat shocking results, stevia, the longer it was administered also affected:
- gut integrity and microbiome behavior
- the immune system, with increased IgG, IgE and IgA levels, all pointing to an increased likelihood of allergies, chronic infections and autoimmunity
- inflammation, with a significant increase in pro-inflammatory cytokines"
(Excerpt) Read more at eatbeautiful.net ...
Okay so I've been 'helping keep my teeth and gums healthy' while 'helping' the rest of my body (essentially) medically rot. Oh but it's approved by the FDA!
Jeez...guess it’s back to sugar in my coffee.
“Sugar is a natural sweetener. So is honey.”
And more dangerous than arsenic, according to most nutrition “experts”.
I think it more what they DO to the stevia extracts in the processing rather than that plant derivative itself.
Regardless, I’ve come to LOVE xylitol as my sweetner of choice.
It killed Lydia.
Got it. Nothing works, until tongue transplants allow us to eat bitter foods.
Thanks for the post. The linked study is not definitive, but it seems legit. So it’s something that should be considered.
I need to watch my sugar intake, so I tried stevia. I don’t like the after-taste. No sugar for me. No stevia. I guess I’m just stuck with unsweetened iced tea with a twist of lemon. Not so bad, actually.
Brew good coffee and you won’t need to add a thing.
Be careful if you have dogs, it can kill them.
Thanks for posting this. I have liver issues and consume stevia as a sugar substitute. I had no idea.
Coffee and Baileys. Just like peanut butter and jelly.
I figure the fake sweeteners are far better for me than sugar. I use Splenda. “Gut bacteria” tend to adjust to whatever we eat. “Healthy gut bacteria” tend to be defined as “Good for Vegans”. So I ignore “good gut bacteria” - I’ll go with “survival of the fittest bacteria” in my gut!
Jeez...guess it’s back to sugar in my coffee.
***********************************************
If you insist in adulterating your coffee you could at least use Bailey’s....
I’ll add this: Mice studies do not impress me. Mice are primarily vegetarians who can also eat meat (usually insects). I hate veggies and am primarily carnivore. I believe humans are ideally carnivores who can also get by with veggies and fruit.
Yes, I am aware. Funny that they don't mention cats, though.
Saccharine was bad until it was revealed the mice were given a lifetime dose every single day. The study was probably funded by Big Sugar. Maybe this one was too.
Butter was bad for you until it wasn’t. Margarine was good until it was bad. Coffee was bad, then good, then bad, then good.
Explain why we are to believe anything but the word of God anymore.
EC
I think Walt added a little something extra for Lydia....
I am trying to track down the original study or studies.
There are some really good double blind clinical studies, and then there are the not so reliable epidemiological ones. I no longer assume that all these “studies” are legit.
From a very quick reading of the article, I didn’t notice any references to the amount being used, the length of time, who paid for the study, whether the results were reproducible, etc.
I use very little if any of the artificial sweeteners, but enjoy trying to figure out who is publishing, and what their motive might be. We are deluged in these studies daily, and we need to be more cautious in assuming they are all valid.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.