this is irrelevant in the context of the study, and also incorrect for the most. OGTT by design is a fasted study. the OGTT was done on a different group, not the adolescent one, which as the study states had to be abandoned on ethical grounds.
the difference between adults and adolescent is due to what they call transient insulin resistance, and there is references in the study you can find for yourself.
you also clearly question the design of the study, by stating that because they were fasted and therefore had nothing in the system to blunt the response. this conclusion in the context of the study makes no sense whatsoever. in a real world scenario, suclarose often is consumed with/during/after carbs are being consumed and this clearly the idea behind the study. the difference in physiological responses are quite significant here.
again, i donāt want cover myself with chatgpt, as they ofc tend to make errors, but I merely used it as a tool to speed up research and it makes it much easier to debunk bro-science like the one coming from your post where in the past I would simply not had the desire or effort to spend the time on it. despite the incorrect statements you have been making here, I am still thankful for those, as the in-depth research only confirms what I initially found in the study - that suclarose is poison and it needs to be absolutely avoided. now you do you or anyone else here, I donāt care at all, but some people will find value in this.
iām sure there is plenty of people here who do consume suclarose+carbs and are in a better shape then me (20%BF currently), shredded, bulked, fit etc and do not see an issue with this so you can clearly compensate for this, consume french fries, guzzle down gatorade zero with it and still reach your goals, but i donāt see good reasons to make this process more difficult. this is also my last post on this, as i have no more desire to play this ping pong and it feels like running a hamster wheel a bit
here is the AI snippet for you;
- The statement contains inaccuracies regarding the procedures followed in the study. Here is a factual clarification based on the study details:
Factual Clarification:
- Initial Testing on Adolescents:
ā¢ The initial testing on adolescents did not involve Oral Glucose Tolerance Tests (OGTTs). Instead, it used single time point fasting blood draws to measure fasting blood plasma insulin and glucose levels. The Homeostatic Model Assessment of Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR) was calculated from these measurements .
ā¢ The adolescents were fasted during these initial blood draws, and the significant differences in insulin resistance were observed in the combination group (sucralose + maltodextrin) during these fasting conditions.
- Follow-Up Testing with Maltodextrin Alone:
ā¢ The follow-up testing with maltodextrin alone was performed on adults, not adolescents. This testing used the OGTT to determine if consuming maltodextrin alone caused changes in insulin response.
ā¢ Participants in the follow-up experiment were fasted prior to the OGTT, as confirmed by the studyās protocol, which states that participants arrived at the lab after a 10-12 hour overnight fast .
ā¢ The follow-up experiment showed no significant changes in insulin sensitivity due to maltodextrin alone, with p-values indicating no statistical difference in the first phase insulin response (p = 0.41) and the full 120-minute period (p = 0.59) .
Conclusion:
The statement that the follow-up testing with maltodextrin alone was done using OGTTs on non-fasted individuals is incorrect. Both the initial testing on adolescents (using fasting blood draws and HOMA-IR) and the follow-up testing with maltodextrin alone in adults (using OGTTs) were conducted under fasting conditions. Therefore, the lack of difference in the follow-up testing is not due to the participants being non-fasted. The observed effects were specific to the combination of sucralose with carbohydrates, not maltodextrin alone.*