Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: ransomnote

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.


20 posted on 04/08/2024 2:22:37 PM PDT by jacquej (“You cannot have a conservative government with a liberal culture." (Mark Steyn))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: jacquej

It seems almost all “nutrition research” is bogus. I just looked at one study, a meta-analysis of about 20 studies. All but one of the studies had no statistical significance. And none of the studies were looking at exactly the same thing or had close to similar procedures, so just how does one lump them together?

Another problem I see a lot: They will statistically account for differences in things like “exercise” - without looking at what qualified as exercise (gardening, running or weight lifting), how often it was done, and most important, no one in the world knows exactly how much running 5 miles a day affects ANYTHING. How do you account for “exercise” if you don’t know what was done, how often, how long and how much effect it has?


27 posted on 04/08/2024 2:34:51 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (We're a nation of feelings, not thoughts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

To: jacquej

“From a very quick reading of the article, I didn’t notice any references to the amount being used...”

I’d be shocked if the study didn’t use the human equivalent of about 2 lbs. of stevia/day.


48 posted on 04/08/2024 3:11:38 PM PDT by Magic Fingers (Political correctness mutates in order to remain virulent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

To: jacquej

You cannot assume anything from this study when the Sweet Leaf brand was used at here are the ingredients...inulin, stevia leaf extract and silica. It is a bogus study...


53 posted on 04/08/2024 3:28:46 PM PDT by mazz44 (http://knowledgeofhealth.com/why-animals-age-they-produce-less-vitamin-c-same-for-humans/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

To: jacquej

“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.”

Here is a link to the actual study: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1319016420301997#s0005

No outside funding and no conflicts disclosed.

The length of time was 8 weeks and 16 weeks.

The amount of stevia used was 4.20 mg (stevia)/1 ml (water). If my math is correct, this converts to ~ 1 gram/8 fluid (US) ounces. One packet of Truvia is 2 grams.


74 posted on 04/09/2024 5:18:24 AM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson