Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re: artificial sweeteners spike insulin (Score 1) 534

by calzones (#49561397) Attached to: Pepsi To Stop Using Aspartame

The problem with diabetes is that either you're T1 and you don't produce insulin (therefore no response) or T2 and your cells are insulin resistant and the temporary extra insulin you get from a diet soda has no effect because the cells just ignore it.

I posted a citation above. But do your own research. Nothing is conclusive in nutrition. Far from it (just look at the cholesterol debacle). But the evidence is damning.

Like I said, go ahead and be a lab rat, but be informed.

Comment: Re:artificial sweeteners spike insulin (Score 3, Interesting) 534

by calzones (#49561353) Attached to: Pepsi To Stop Using Aspartame

Re insulin response in sucralose:

Also, protein itself elicits an insulin response.

Admittedly the case for Aspartame is weaker, and I can't find the citation right now, but despite early studies showing no insulin response for Aspartame, a more recent study DID make make a correlation.

Either way, artificial sweeteners being associated with insulin resistance regardless of BMI has been well-established. It stands to reason, given the evidence that Sucralose has been confirmed to result in an Insulin response, and that Insulin management in general is a tricky thing, that one should treat all artificial sweeteners with the same level of suspicion in this regard.

The only thing that excuses Stevia for now is that studies have shown a beneficial effect as opposed to any negative effect. Feel free to be a lab rat, just be an informed lab rat.

Comment: artificial sweeteners spike insulin (Score 4, Interesting) 534

by calzones (#49561135) Attached to: Pepsi To Stop Using Aspartame

The problem is that artificial sweeteners create an insulin response even though they are calorie free.

The insulin causes two things: 1) it tells cells to uptake sugar from your blood, which leaves you slightly hypoglycemic, since the insulin response is out of proportion to the actual sugar load consumed (particularly on an empty stomach). 2) chronically elevated insulin leads to insulin resistance (the precursor to metabolic syndrome which makes you fat, diabetic, hypertensive, etc).

This is the real reason we need to stop using most artificial sweeteners. Stevia and Erythritol have not been shown to cause this insulin response. It doesn't mean they aren't also bad. Only that for now, the jury is still out and they appear to be safe. Stevia in particular has been associated with something of an opposite effect, where it seems to improve insulin response in people who consume it.

Now for the popular reason they're getting rid of it:

Aspartame itself appears to have neurological effects as well, which in sufficient quantities causes problems. I personally know that any more than 20 oz of Diet Coke starts making me feel "odd" for lack of a better way to put it. It's not the caffeine. I don't get the effect from non-aspartame caffeinated drinks.

This seems like a relatively minor reason to stop using aspartame unless you're consuming vast quantities. Regardless, people think it's a neurotoxin and can't have that. (Forget about all the other benzene additives, colorants... even caffeine itself is a toxin).

Anyway, glad to see they are doing away with it. Here's hoping they don't use use Sucralose, which is even worse than Aspartame at producing a phantom insulin spike. (And people get upset at the chlorine... but say nothing about drinking chlorinated water or soaking in hot tubs).

Comment: camera shake? (Score 3, Interesting) 20

by calzones (#49556051) Attached to: Seeing Buildings Shake With Software

Accurately and precisely canceling out camera shake (indeed the movement of the building/foundation where the camera itself sits too) on something like this would seem to be a big deal.

I guess instead of having accelerometers on the building they put them on the camera? Article didn't really get into this aspect.

Comment: Re:Apple REULEZ! (Score 1) 408

by calzones (#47957363) Attached to: Why You Can't Manufacture Like Apple

You're a ridiculous, abject moron. Undeniably an ad-hominem, but since it's obviously true I'm ok with it =]

For the record, the ad-hominem in question was calling Marlin's integrity, intent, and legitimacy into question as your justification for calling his position and opinion unviable and of no value. Either you can't see that, hence you're a moron, or you can but you choose to argue and troll away regardless... hence you're a moron.

Comment: Re:Apple REULEZ! (Score 5, Insightful) 408

by calzones (#47954681) Attached to: Why You Can't Manufacture Like Apple

Nice way to interpret his intent into something base can prop your ad hominem upon.

There's nothing wrong with establishing an argument that claims you work in a particular field and therefore are accustomed to making educated choices about stuff related to that field.

If someone calls themselves a chef or a foodie, it may not make them right when they say how long you should boil pasta, but it means their opinion about it IS based on care, thought, and knowledge about the subject at hand. If someone random says "boil spaghetti for 20 minutes" then you may be more apt to consider their opinion as out of hand than someone who presents "credentials".

If slashdot wasn't such a fucking non-stop pissing-contest people might not feel the need to present "papers please" when offering their thoughtful opinions about stuff.

Comment: Re:Stop using Youtube (Score 1) 306

Let's not forget that's the hubris and presumptuousness that is required to assume that a video is worthless except for the copyrighted audio track within.
At the very least, Google's Content-ID system should split the revenue sharing 50-50 between the Content ID owner the owner of the video. Neither could exist without the other.

While a record company may claim that no one would watch the video were it not for the soundtrack (and this does happen a lot on YouTube, where people just upload a song and add a photo of the album cover or something), the reverse is just as often true: people watch a video for the video and in the process learn about a song, or are further exposed to it (and that's the point of radio, after all. the more you get exposed to a song the more likely you are to end up wanting to buy it).

When it is not necessary to make a decision, it is necessary not to make a decision.