problems with diet due to allergies

Hello Aldebaran:

You certainly have a lot of allergies that can seem to make a WLS journey a little more complicated. I began my WLS journey in 10/2017. I also was required to lose 10% of my weight to be even considered for WLS.

At the beginning of the journey, it seemed really hard for me because I was making so many radical changes in my dietary habits. As I took each change one step at a time, it became possible. I also was very hungry and cranky at the beginning when I was cutting out carbs and eating a lot less each day than I was used to eating. It does get easier over time, though.

I came across this article about artificial sweeteners. It's an evidence-based article. It is about the 4 best natural sweeteners. I know you said you are allergic to stevia, but there are 3 other natural sweeteners listed:

https://link.healthline.com/click/5bc2e43c9c625f533b167dab/a HR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaGVhbHRobGluZS5jb20vbnV0cml0aW9uLzQtaGVhbHRoe S1uYXR1cmFsLXN3ZWV0ZW5lcnM/5bc2e43d576f2c705f3cbb8aB22c1038d

Best of luck, Aldebaran, on your continuing WLS journey!

Great article!

I am very skeptical of the article you posted. While it links to a lot of different medical studies, very few of them hold up to scrutiny. Many of the conclusions are based on studies with 10 or fewer participants; the article often draws conclusions from this research that is not appropriate based on the research methods, IMO.

I wonder if you have any better researched, helpful information to post on this subject? I'm sure it would be helpful for OP and others on this forum.

It also must have taken you quite awhile to obtain and read the full scientific articles referenced in the above listed article so that you could analyze the research methods and statistical evaluations in each of them and come to the conclusion you arrived at. Kudos to you for your dedication!

Well gosh, that's quite a bit of unwarranted snark!

I have access to the same information that you, or anyone else does; I just happened to actually click through the citations quoted in the page you linked.

No need to read the full articles; that's the benefit of a well-written abstract! As a professional data nerd and working statistician, the red flags I spotted were largely based on sample size, which is (fortunately) identified right up front.

Citation 4, "stevia lowers blood pressure in people with diabetes:" this study only had 12 participants

Citations 5 and 6 were carried out on rats. I don't think it's generally a good idea to make substantive claims about human health without testing on human subjects. This sort of research is great for, "hey this is interesting, let's do further testing," but jumping to "hey, this means stevia must be great for humans" seems a bit of a stretch.

Citation 7, "Erythritol doesn't spike blood sugar" used only five patients to draw their conclusions.

Citation 10 relies on self-reported data, and patients administered the protocol on their own. Both processes are of questionable reliability.

Citation 13 is also a rat-only study.

I'm skeptical of citation 16. The authors do not mention their sample size, nor do they discuss controls for any other factors other than the consumption of syrup. I'll withhold judgement until reading the full text.

Citation 18 only included 23 patients.

Citation 19 only included 16 patients.

I was only commending you on the time you took to review the research articles. I'm sorry you took it the wrong way.

Were you trying to apologize here? I can't tell. The words "I'm sorry" indicate an apology, but "you took it the wrong way" indicates that you're blaming Julie.

The problem with the written word, whether it is texts or posts, is that it is devoid of vocal and facial expression. I feel that this is often the source of misunderstandings and confusion. I am a bit surprised by Sparklekitty's and your (Gwen M) take on my posts.

When I was in College, I had to take courses in statistical analysis of scientific articles. In Graduate School, I had to be an active member of Journal Club, where we reported on and evaluated the validity of articles from the major medical journals. These were not stellar times in my academic career!

At that time, it was drilled into our heads that we needed to go back to the full original article in order to properly evaluate the research done. We were reminded that authors sometimes took liberty or made "leaps of faith" in making conclusions from their research that were not supported by their research. Since then, I've been wary about relying solely on Abstracts of articles to analyze their validity.

This is the basis of my first response to Sparklekitty. Not only have methods of statistical analysis most likely changed over time, but I recognize that there are many people who are much more skilled at statistical analysis of scientific articles than I am. So in my first post, I was truly commending Sparklekitty for doing the work to analyze the references that were supposed to be the "scientific evidence" supporting the article I posted.

Then I was amazed that Sparklekitty took the initiative to post her brief analyses of each of the citations from the article on artificial sweeteners and so quickly. It would have taken me weeks to do that plus more time to concisely express my findings as Sparklekitty did.

In my second post, I was just trying to express my respect for the skills she demonstrated.

In my second post to Sparklekitty, I was sorry that she took my original post as a challenge instead of as a compliment, which I intended it to be.

At this point, I hope things are clearer to both Sparklekitty, you (Gwen M), and any other person who may have been confused by my posts.

Apologies can be sticky wickets - especially electronic ones as you've noted.

But true apologies all have one thing in common: they take responsibility for saying something hurtful or rude. When we distress, insult or offend another we are always accountable for our words. We may disagree with another's reaction or even feel that they overreacted. But it's not our place to dictate response.

The bottom line? Apologizing because another individual reacted as they did is poor form. Being sorry means being remorseful and regretting our own words or actions. An appropriate and heartfelt apology NEVER lays the blame on the other(s).

The fact of the matter is that we have either spoken or acted in a way that has caused offense. Whether we judge the offense as valid or no has zero impact on the fact that we have negatively impacted another, and we regret it. If we don't believe we have said or done anything regrettable, we simply do not apologize. We can not have it both ways, and attempting to do so is just gauche.

Sometimes when we are new to a forum it takes a day or two to get our sea legs and learn personalities. All of us have been new, and all of us get that. We're really glad to have you and I personally enjoy your posts. I feel the need to put this out there but please know it isn't directed only at you. There has been a spate of these faux apologies lately and I personally find them unacceptable. Just my two cents.

Amy R: My post was not meant to be an apology. I don't have anything to apologize for in my posts. The most recent post served only to clarify some misunderstandings that others seem to have about my previous posts.