Guest essay by Charles Rotter aka “Charles the Moderator”
(Note from Anthony: Working behind the scenes all these years, Charles has earned the right for a little self promotion here, in my opinion. I hope readers will agree.)
One of the slightly lesser talked about issues in Climate Change discussions is the effect of methane emissions on the Global heat budget. This was recently discussed in several posts concerning recent California laws created to control methane emissions from the dairy industry, this being the latest.
California passes a new climate law to regulate cow farts
There are approximately 1.4 billion cattle on our planet. That’s a lot of cows and a lot of potential methane. Buuut…there are over 7 BILLION people on our planet. That’s a much bigger pool of farting mammals to control if we are going to do our part to save the planet.
I’m Charles the Moderator also known as ctm. Long time denizens of this site remember me from my more active days around here helping to spread truth.
A while back I decided I had to do my part materially as well as intellectually to improve the world for my fellow mammals. I decided to take on the scourge of sugar alcohols and their devastating effects on well-being and methane production.
What turned sugar free candies into super laxatives
“The unhappy commenters mentioned stomach rumbles, ear-splittingly loud flatulence, and diarrhea.”
I have created a way for the sweet-toothed to have their figurative cake, and literally eat it too.
Introducing Crotters’ Best Radically Dark Chocolate.
I have created the only, (as far as I know), no added sugar bittersweet chocolate in the world, sweetened with Splenda Brand® sweetener and nothing else. It contains no Maltitol, or any other Sugar Alcohols. It also does not contain Stevia, also known to cause gastric distress for some.
Anthony has graciously given me the opportunity to humorously introduce my chocolate to this audience. If you’d like to try them out, see the links above.
On a more serious note, this product was created for diabetics and low carb dieters, it has an estimated glycemic load of zero, essentially the same as baking chocolate, and zero net carbs.
This rich, dark chocolate bar offers a complex chocolate flavor with just the perfect amount of acidity and a bright sweet finish.
If you are a diabetic or on a low-carb diet, or careful about your sugar consumption, but actually like to eat a good amount, then this is the chocolate for you.
Buy some today.
It’s been nearly two decades since the first hockey stick…and at last there’s one planet-huggy product worth buying.
Genius.
the bitterness of the chocolate should effectively mask the bitterness of the sucralose.
(That sucralose is so….yukky!)
Ugh. They ruined it with the sucralose. If you’re going to eat 93% cacao chocolate, just go with a little regular sugar or nothing at all.
I went to the store using the link provided. They only sell the two varieties of chocolate bars. Not much of a store. I was curious what else they sold. Hope they will expand their product selection.
Hi, Charles the moderator. Delighted to tell you we ordered one of each. Better then good luck with your new venture.
From your old friend (or enemy) taxistan. I lit your hair on fire for a few years there.
P.S. I’ve mellowed or you an Anthony have tamed me.
P.S. 2 Bless you Anthony for including this post. Bravo.
CTM aka Charles the Moderator:
I am a type II diabetic, my wife is not. Her average Fasting Insulin Level was around 3 units prior to drinking a bottled water with Sucralose. Later, her fasting insulin returned to normal after looking for non Sucralose sweeteners (Stevia). My numbers were around 16 average and during the period of using the Sucralose water it was up around the mid 20’s! We did this after having read the two articles I am sending as links and other researched information! One of your competitors with a bar product uses malitol.
I respect this site and those who discuss the issues, and it is in that vein I ask you to investigate these points!
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/early/2013/04/30/dc12-2221
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/early/2013/04/30/dc12-2221
Reply:
Pepino et al. was a small, nonblinded, randomized, cross-over study in a select group of mostly female (15/17), predominantly African American (13/17), relatively young (mean age 35 years), morbidly obese (BMI 42.3 ± 1.6 kg/m2), insulin-sensitive subjects. The study evaluated the response to a 75-g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) conducted 10 min after consumption of 60 mL of either distilled water or an aqueous 2 mmol/L sucralose solution. OGTTs were conducted about 1 week apart in the morning after a self-reported overnight fast.
While a statistically significant difference in peak plasma glucose change was reported, the actual peak plasma glucose concentration following the postsucralose OGTT was within the normal range for a 75-g OGTT (2). These results indicate no clinically significant impact on glycemic control. Consistent with this, there was no accompanying statistically significant treatment group difference in mean glucose area under the curve.
Small changes in insulin sensitivity, such as those reported in this study, can be the result of many factors. For example, varying food intake and menstrual status can produce insulin sensitivity changes and have been particularly difficult to control in outpatient studies. There was no record or control of exercise or food intake in the days preceding the self-reported overnight fast, or information on menstrual status in this study of mostly women of menstruating age. The test drink in this study was also about five times sweeter than a typical diet soft drink, and there was no control to assess the impact of sweetness alone. Other factors, such as gastric emptying rates, can also significantly impact OGTT outcomes. Such confounding variables could impact the results of repetitive OGTTs in this small (N = 17) study, and thus explain the nominal differences observed in the insulin and glucose measures reported. ~ctm
Sorry for two links being the same. Here is the second link: https://magazine.wustl.edu/2014/February/Pages/Sucralose-raises-insulin-levels.aspx
Hi ken g., – A few taste receptors (“Tas”, or “TAS”) that use G-protein subunits for signaling have been discovered in tissue of the pancreas, skeletal muscle, central nervous system, liver & cardiac cells. The artificial sweeteners are capable of being agonists (activators) of the receptor complex (homodimer) Tas1R2/Tas1R3.
Pancreatic beta-cell sufface has Tas1R2, Tas1R3 & another taste receptor called alpha-gustducin. In other words, even though a sweet substance does not have any caloric nutrients that are metabolized it can act as a ligand (bind) which sets up signalling cascade resulting in insulin release. {{Incidentally, since many may be interested, fructose also can bind to these taste receptors.}}
Humans have genetic encoding poly-morphisms in TAS1R2 & TAS1R3. Changes in one of these genes can alter the binding affinity for a receptor ligand having the unique chemical composition of a specific non-nutrient (artificial) sweetener.
There is also a “learned response” to artificial sweeteners; so that constant users may see different responses from their Tas1R2/Tas1R3 receptors’ signalling. Actual dose (concentration amount) at the time ingested does not cause a linear activation response of taste receptor signal cascade & movement of the number of these receptors to a cell surface; in some cases paradoxically a lower dose elicits more taste receptor signalling than a mega-dose. Furthermore, there is varied response to taste receptor elicitation whether one is lean, overweight or obese (& presumably whether Type 2 diabetic at these weight categories).
Since there are assorted confounding factors the issue of whether human pancreatic Tas1R2 & Tas1R3 can instigate insulin release in response to any one kind of artificial sweetener has not been conclusively established (as far as I know). However, if your fasting insulin tests were done on a empty stomach in the morning (12 hours fast) then I think your reaction could be explained by the above.
My understanding is that sucralose is related to an increased expression GLUT2 in pancreatic Beta-cells & increased expression of SGLT1 in the cells lining (epithelial) the gut as a consequence of Tas1R2/Tas1R3 activity. If there is co-currently any carbohydrate or blood glucose to be metabolized at the same time that then enters the dynamic as well. When glucose is given by injection (intra-venous) as opposed to orally for a glucose tolerance test there is a different response; so I expect this distinction to carry over as a complication in parsing how a specific artificial sugar dose works it’s way through one’s system.
Hearty congratulations on your venture and big thanks for your contributions to this often unruly but magnificent site. One can see that over time you have tamed shrews like myself, but without dulling the wonderful free-for-all that that is all too rare these days. Regarding your chocolate, two observations: a)”gourmet” chocolate with weird and wonderful ingredients and just plain dark chocolate seems to becoming a trendy and so I believe you have anticipated an expanding market. 2) I’m fond of chocolate, but prefer real sugar (not too much of it, mind) – do you think you may go beyond the specialized market your after?
Human farts are not predominantly methane, so the comparison doesn’t work.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-composition-of-the-human-fart