I took the super-duper thick yogurt that I made with added prebiotic fiber and made a really delicious and rich chocolate frozen yogurt.
Most store-bought yogurt, of course is the outdated and unhealthy low- or non-fat variety, often thickened with emulsifying agents to improve consistency, but damaging the mucous lining of your intestinal tract and encouraging dysbiosis, even if it contains probiotic microorganisms. We can make high-fat yogurt, prolong the fermentation process to further reduce lactose and denature the casein protein, and add a prebiotic fiber such as inulin to increase bacterial counts and increase butyrate content for intestinal and metabolic health. (Recall that butyrate is the microbial metabolite produced by healthy bowel flora microorganisms believed to be responsible for physiologic benefits in humans, such as decreased blood sugar and blood pressure, improved insulin responsiveness, reduced triglycerides, improved mood and reduced depression, deeper sleep, better bowel regularity and reduced risk for colon cancer. Butyrate is also found in large quantities in butter.) The result is a yogurt so rich and thick that it can stand up on a plate.
I therefore used this extra-thick yogurt to make frozen yogurt. The end result was wonderful, the best frozen yogurt I’ve ever had. And, of course, it contained no added sugars and no emulsifiers.
I chose chocolate, but you can easily replace the cocoa powder with berries, other fruit, or add mint or instant coffee for other flavor variations.
The painfully simple recipe below uses 1 cup, so just multiply by the number of cups you want to make.
1 cup Wheat Belly Yogurt
1 tablespoon unsweetened cocoa powder
1 1/2 tablespoons Virtue Sweetener (or other sweetener equivalent to 1/2 cup sugar)
In bowl, combine yogurt, cocoa powder, and Virtue and mix thoroughly. Allow to set at least 1 hour in freezer.
In today’s science news (Medscape again) I read the following article: “Calcium Essential to Limit Osteoporosis but Avoid Excess, Say Europeans”
Just a little background on my situation: I know what Dr. Davis recommends, but not too long ago another poster and I expressed our dismay that we don’t know how the various recommendations might apply to us since we take antihormonal drugs for breast cancer that cause bone loss. I shared that I’m too afraid not to take some, but that it’s not as much as the RDA or the amount typically recommended to women on these drugs. But not knowing for sure what is best, I have never been completely comfortable with this choice.
Based on that experience, two things stood out in the above referenced article:
1) These new recommendations by the EMAS are more in line with what my naturopath suggested to me, which was to adjust my supplement intake daily based on how much calcium I’m getting in my diet, and at a lower total amount than previously recommended. Most postmenopausal women are told to take 1200mg per day regardless of how much calcium they are eating (and especially women on these drugs), and they are getting too much. Conventional wisdom is apparently coming around, which is a good thing, although it clearly has a ways to go. I still don’t know how it applies to me in my unique situation, but it makes me feel better about my choice to take less calcium.
2) This line at the end of the article about knocked me over: “If they decline supplements, as long as they increase their vitamin D levels and/or physical activity, they should be able to balance their insufficiency.” What kind of convoluted statement is that? Shouldn’t the first line recommendation therefore be to increase vitamin D and physical activity, and only take calcium supplements if that fails to work, rather than the other way around? And how is it a legitimate insufficiency if these measures balance it? Sounds more like a vitamin D and physical activity insufficiency than a calcium insufficiency to me! Ding ding ding!
So yeah, this got long, but I felt reassured by the article in more ways than one. I also love to see Dr. Davis proven right, even if they didn’t mean to!
I’ve been researching faux sugars and recently came across an article about the down side of artificial sugars that worries me.
Check out the articles on tricking the brain with faux sugars in Scientific American and other such studies on Springer.com.
For me, the point is to be healthy and not end up in yet another “experiment” with no benefit for humans (me for instance). I do not want to be an unknowing lab rat and have almost decided that eschewing faux work-arounds and trying to get close to the real thing without having the real thing is not going to work for me. That’s the reason I began using raw, unfiltered honey until I found out that my info was wrong and honey does NOT act differently in the body because it is a natural, unprocessed, raw, and un-adulterated sugar. It IS DEFINITELY an insulin trigger and the body DOES treat it as a sugar with the result that it is not healthful when you are prediabetic. I have also been skeptical about the faux/artificial sugars for the same reason. I can either continue to ruin my pancreas and my health by giving into the “almost the same” mantra or give up, limit sugar intake, and learn to live without anything resembling the ‘just as good as’ label on everything. The human body is not the rat body and humans are very different in how the human body acts in the real world.
JACKIE M. CORNWELL wrote: «I’ve been researching faux sugars and recently came across an article about the down side of artificial sugars that worries me.»
Sweeteners are always under the microscope here. We do need to be clear about categories, though:
1. simple saccharides
2. alternative natural sweeteners
3. artificial sweeteners
Real sugars (#1) aren’t prohibited in the program. They are just subject to the net carb budget, as confirmed by blood glucose response (for those that are substantially glucose). Caution is required with sweeteners that are substantially fructose, because it won’t register on a BG meter (credible agave “nectar” is a problem in that regard). The net carb rule allows for so little real sugars that there’s rarely any point in using them.
The program currently recommends five alternative natural sweeteners (2#). Of these, xylitol can provoke BG is used to excess. The Virtue product mentioned in the recipe is an erythritol and monk fruit blend.
No artificial (full synthetic/non-natural) sweeteners (#3) are endorsed, and reasons vary. Sucralose, for example, was dropped from the suggested list after the publication of the original Wheat Belly book. My presumption is that it’s suspect as a gut and gut flora antagonist.
Many researchers fail to make this distinction, and often either fail to test the natural alt. products, or lump the results in with the truly artificials, making it hard to tease out risk factors.
re: «…raw, unfiltered honey…»
Yep, it’s a simple sugar. If it’s credible, and within the carb budget, it might have some micronutrient benefits over ordinary sucrose, but you really need to be dealing with a local apiary, working an organic forage area, and where the hives are never fed other sugars to replace what’s harvested. This does not usually describe the honey on store shelves, which can easily be mostly HFCS, with colorants, flavorants, and if any actual bee spit is present, loaded with chloramphenicol and fluoroquinolones.
re: «It IS DEFINITELY an insulin trigger…»
Anything that tastes sweet can provoke a cephalic phase insulin response (heck, just looking at the picture above can probably do that). This is transient and of no apparent consequence to people on low carb diets (it can probably provoke craving in people still on standard diets).
If I were going to worry about provoking insulin, the whey fraction of unfermented dairy is probably of greater concern. That’s a longer-lasting response in those sensitive to it.
re: «I can either continue to ruin my pancreas…»
Is there a particular pathology afoot here, or was there a specific cite you wanted to share?
re: «The human body is not the rat body and humans are very different in how the human body acts in the real world.»
Indeed. Reverting to the levels of dietary sweeteners available 20,000 years ago is perfectly sound in theory: fruits in season, occasional honey (if the tribal elites didn’t confiscate it from you). In our modern context, though, having safer sweeteners available is a major aid to diet transition and compliance. Some people do indeed lose their “sweet tooth” over time, and that’s fine.
________
Blog Associate (click my user name for details)
I refer you to the article in Scientific American and Springer.com.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/tricking-taste-buds-but-not-the-brain-artificial-sweeteners-change-braine28099s-pleasure-response-to-sweet/
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40614-015-0028-3
JACKIE M. CORNWELL wrote: «I refer you to the article in Scientific American and Springer.com.»
I’ll have a look.
Meanwhile, the 2017 video article on program-suggested sweeteners just got a transcript:
The Wheat Belly Guide to Natural Sweeteners
The list hasn’t changed from 2016, but that article has more background and application detail.
________
Blog Associate (click my user name for details)
JACKIE M. CORNWELL wrote: «I refer you to the article in Scientific American…»
That article covered only beverages, and only sugar- or artificially-sweetened beverages, and nothing that would have been based on the alternative natural sweeteners the program recommends. It, and the two papers it cites, would also have been based on subject populations on standard diets. The observations are not surprising at all. People on full-time glycemic diets, that include chronic grain exposure, are probably all-to-easily craving-triggered by any sweet taste. And sure, if the brain doesn’t detect glucose from a real-sugar bev, it will shortly be asking “hey, where’s that sugar that the taste buds promised?”
SciAm: “Even if you aren’t married to the clean eating fad, the take home message is that real sugar or not, moderation is key for a healthy brain-reward response.” No. The priority is what to eat, and within the spectrum of choices under WB/Undoctored, moderation is rarely necessary.
I might add that on WB/Undoctored guidance, where we shoot for keeping BG well under 100 mg/dL at all times (HbA1c of 5.0% or less, TG 60 mg/dL or less), the experience of excess sugar exposure can actually be a bit unpleasant, compared to being on a full-time glycemic diet. It tends to shift sugar exposure from being a positive reinforcer to being a negative reinforcer. Any future sweetener research, in addition to including some naturals, needs also to have to subject arms on low carb diets.
re: «…and Springer.com.»
Well, that was pay-walled at Springer, but the full-text of that meta paper is available at PMC:
ABAI: Not so Sweet Revenge: Unanticipated Consequences of High-Intensity Sweeteners
It’s a survey of papers that, again, looked only at beverages, sweetened with sugar, and non-calorics including aspartame, sucralose, saccharin, and acesulfame potassium (Ace-K) — all “artificial” per my earlier reply above. Of the alternative natural sweeteners suggested by WB/Undoctored, only stevia would be found in commercial beverages, and then only from 2008 onward, and it still has so little market share that it hasn’t to my knowledge been the subject of any comparable research (if you find any, be sure to share it here).
“The results of these experiments have demonstrated that rats given dietary supplements sweetened with an artificial sweetener eat more of their regular diet, gain extra weight, and are fatter than rats given dietary supplements sweetened with a caloric sugar…”
Yep. I’ve seen the same effect in people. Back when I had out-of-home jobs, the fattest co-workers always had a diet pop in tow (although it was never Zevia®). If the wider diet remains uncorrected, diet pop could easily be aggravating the metabolic problem, and by any of several mechanisms.
So that ABAI meta seems only to confirm the WB program advice: don’t use {truly} artificial sweeteners. And I won’t be surprised if even stevia-sweetened pops are unwise on standard diets. Further: carbonated beverages, sweetened or not, have other problems, out of scope for the present discussion. The only one used in the program is simple seltzer water (carbonated water), in making magnesium water, where the carbonation is consumed by converting it to Mg bicarbonate.
________
Blog Associate (click my user name for details)