Honestly, I didn’t read the whole thing. It’s pretty complicated and uninteresting to me, although I guess the conclusions may bolster some of the arguments against artificial sweeteners for those who are into that stuff. I was just surprised they maybe didn’t address the basic setup, and was able to find quickly the section where they answer OP question. It does seem like some hand waving, though. “Hey, we know this setup looks weird, so we checked it using this other thing, and trust us it’s cool.” Not sure whether their explanation is satisfying, but they did at least address it.
It’s maybe 20% down on the page.
Interesting that I don’t see any data describing dosage or if the participants were required to fast before the additional study with maltodextrin alone.
This was my point exactly. When it came to the second study, things went from being specific to vague real quick.
Contrary to advertising claims, sugar substitutes are no better for health than sugar itself. Most recently, my mother was examined by a doctor and he said that for women over 50 years of age, 2 or more diet soda cans a day seriously increase the risk of stroke and other cardiovascular diseases.
That's because many people who drink diet soda don't necessarily eat a healthy diet otherwise. These correlations ignore many factors that are impossible to measure.
I stopped drinking soda a couple of years ago mainly to get rid of the caffeine; I also stopped drinking sweet tea for the same reason. Instead, I started using Crystal Light and I'd carry packets with me when I went to restaurants. At home, I mix it up by the gallon.
I lost maybe a couple of pounds after this change, but that seemed to stabilize after a while, which disappointed me. However, it seemed to improve my blood sugar results during my annual physical.
More pages on diet soda than chili or hamburger steak.
What's the world coming to??