Food Question: Sausages and Steaks

[SpyderEdgeForever]

Basically here is my question: Can a person get the same basic protein and nutritional value from a package of high quality well-made and trusted sausages (such as bratwurst or others) that they would get from eating a standard solid beef steak (say mostly lean with some fat to it), or, would you be missing out on important protein and nutritional values if you ate the sausages instead of the steak?

By high quality I mean a package of sausages that are NOT the standard mass-market types but say beef or pork sausages that are made of the highest quality meats and ground with natural spices, not alot of preservatives or artificial addons. (ie, like local sausages you could get at a farmer's market)
Or, would the fact that it was ground up and not in the original solid-meat state have any negative effect?

A related question: Can vs fresh fish. Since the basic fish meat is the same, would a standard can of salmon give you the same level of nutrients and healthy fish oils that you would get from a fresh caught and/or frozen salmon, or, would there be a major difference between the canned vs the fresh? Obviously, the canned salmon would have a higher salt/sodium content, because they canned it with that, but aside from that, comparing the meat to meat of canned vs fresh, would there be any major difference?

Someone I was discussing this topic with brought up an interesting point: They said that in the CANNED fish like salmon and sardines, you are also getting the benefits of the ground-up bones, which contain calcium and other nutrients, that most people who eat the fresh fish do not get because they throw away the bones and just go for the meat. Ofcourse, the original question had to do with the meat in the can vs the meat in the fresh-caught or frozen.

And now the third and last part: When it comes to DESSERTS such as cakes, cookies, and related, does it make a HEALTH difference if you eat desserts with higher quality ingredients, than say the mass-produced ones (I don't want to mention the brand names) you can find pre-packaged in most grocery stores, or, are they all the same? The person I was discussing this with told me there is no inherent difference, ie, if you make a cream filled sponge cake with all home made ingredients, fat and sugar are still fat and sugar, and even though your home-made version may have less of the artificial sweeteners and preservatives and colorings, it is still "fattening" and not healthy. Would you all agree with that, or, would you see a major difference? One example they used was "creme brulee" which has a reputation of being a high quality and somewhat pricey dessert, vs, a prepackaged snack cake; the person told me both are made with fat and sugar and even though the creme brulee is more expensive and homemade usually, it does not make it better for you.

Ofcourse..who eats desserts for health? :)

[tvenuto]

Basically here is my question: Can a person get the same basic protein and nutritional value from a package of high quality well-made and trusted sausages (such as bratwurst or others) that they would get from eating a standard solid beef steak (say mostly lean with some fat to it), or, would you be missing out on important protein and nutritional values if you ate the sausages instead of the steak?

By high quality I mean a package of sausages that are NOT the standard mass-market types but say beef or pork sausages that are made of the highest quality meats and ground with natural spices, not alot of preservatives or artificial addons. (ie, like local sausages you could get at a farmer's market)
Or, would the fact that it was ground up and not in the original solid-meat state have any negative effect?

Oh, SEF, you muse about such an eclectic range of topics.

First note: sausage is generally made out of pork, because porkfat works well in this application, and the lean parts of pork are very lean and thus not great for straight up grilling as a steak. A beef steak is beef, so we aren't comparing apples to apples.

Second note: Any animal-based protein is a complete protein, meaning it contains all necessary amino acids for your survival, so thumbs up for animal protein.

Third note: A steak is not a steak. The way the cow was raised strongly influences the fat composition, which can have long-term health consequences (for you; they are killed before it gives them cow diabetes or something).

Fourth note: This choice is only part of the larger body of intake we call "your diet." As such, it can not be commented on absent the rest of the choices. Look at it this way: when you come to a stop sign, is it better to go left or right? The answer to this question requires knowing the choices you made up to this stop sign (where you came from), which particular stop sign this is, and most importantly, where you plan to go.

A related question: Can vs fresh fish. Since the basic fish meat is the same, would a standard can of salmon give you the same level of nutrients and healthy fish oils that you would get from a fresh caught and/or frozen salmon, or, would there be a major difference between the canned vs the fresh? Obviously, the canned salmon would have a higher salt/sodium content, because they canned it with that, but aside from that, comparing the meat to meat of canned vs fresh, would there be any major difference?

Someone I was discussing this topic with brought up an interesting point: They said that in the CANNED fish like salmon and sardines, you are also getting the benefits of the ground-up bones, which contain calcium and other nutrients, that most people who eat the fresh fish do not get because they throw away the bones and just go for the meat. Ofcourse, the original question had to do with the meat in the can vs the meat in the fresh-caught or frozen.

This one is a bit more apples to apples. In the specific salmon example, it's possible that the canned is actually better a better choice, if we're comparing wild caught canned salmon to farm raised fresh. Again it's a matter of fat composition due to the way the salmon is raised, as well as other nutrient changes we may be inadvertently introducing due to the farming aspect. Some canned salmon does not contain bone, so that may or may not be a factor.

And now the third and last part: When it comes to DESSERTS such as cakes, cookies, and related, does it make a HEALTH difference if you eat desserts with higher quality ingredients, than say the mass-produced ones (I don't want to mention the brand names) you can find pre-packaged in most grocery stores, or, are they all the same? The person I was discussing this with told me there is no inherent difference, ie, if you make a cream filled sponge cake with all home made ingredients, fat and sugar are still fat and sugar, and even though your home-made version may have less of the artificial sweeteners and preservatives and colorings, it is still "fattening" and not healthy. Would you all agree with that, or, would you see a major difference? One example they used was "creme brulee" which has a reputation of being a high quality and somewhat pricey dessert, vs, a prepackaged snack cake; the person told me both are made with fat and sugar and even though the creme brulee is more expensive and homemade usually, it does not make it better for you.

Ofcourse..who eats desserts for health? :)

Firstly, see the bold note above, no food possesses the quality: "healthy or unhealthy" "fattening or thinning." Choices are good or bad depending on where you want to go and where you are now.

Beyond that, I would again repeat that fat is not just fat. Macronutrient ratio (the % of Fat, Protein, and Carbohydrates in your diet) are certainly important, and having a "sweet tooth" might be throwing these off, but there is very definitely a difference between consuming margarine and butter. This is so clear that even lawmaking has admitted this with the limiting of trans fats, or at least the labeling of them. Also, you have to imagine that those chemicals such as preservatives and artificial sweeteners are having some effect on your body, right? Given that they definitely already have some biologically relevant function (like preventing bacterial growth), I don't see how anyone could possibly claim that these pass through your system (which relies heavily on bacteria, BTW) with no effect whatsoever. Now, whether or not you're able to see this cause and effect clearly is another matter, but I refuse to believe that there isn't some unintended consequence to consuming them.

[SpyderEdgeForever]

Yes and what I also notice is that some companies are now returning to cane sugar and other natural sugars as a sweetener for their drinks and foods, and stopping the use of high fructose corn syrup and artificial sweeteners.

[Doc Dan]

It sounds to me like you have a tasty experiment to do :)

As for the fish, I eat a lot of canned sardine (not really like those in the USA, much better cold water fish). I also eat a lot of canned tuna (the safe kind), and canned Salmon. I buy fish occasionally, but even though I am near the sea, fish is very expensive, here. There is a difference in the quality of the taste but if both are prepared well, there is no difference in nutritional value. Cooked fish is cooked fish.

[eidah]

It sounds to me like you have a tasty experiment to do :)

As for the fish, I eat a lot of canned sardine (not really like those in the USA, much better cold water fish). I also eat a lot of canned tuna (the safe kind), and canned Salmon. I buy fish occasionally, but even though I am near the sea, fish is very expensive, here. There is a difference in the quality of the taste but if both are prepared well, there is no difference in nutritional value. Cooked fish is cooked fish.

I live in Malaysia, What brands of sardine and tuna do you buy doc dan?

[tvenuto]

Yes and what I also notice is that some companies are now returning to cane sugar and other natural sugars as a sweetener for their drinks and foods, and stopping the use of high fructose corn syrup and artificial sweeteners.

The funny thing is high fructose corn syrup was originally designed to be a substitute for cane sugar. The "high fructose" is relative to "regular" corn syrup, not cane sugar, which is a combination of fructose and glucose. High fructose corn syrup was made to mimic those proportions.

This is not to say that undesirable things, such as pesticides or other chemicals, don't sneak their way in along with the corn syrup. However, from a carbohydrate standpoint, HFCS is pretty indistinguishable from "cane" sugar to your body. Artificial sweeteners are a different story.

[SpyderEdgeForever]

tvenuto, that is by the way another question I have, thank you for mentioning this:

When it comes to sugars and sweeteners, of the natural kind, ie, cane sugar, beet sugar, molasses, honey, the human body does not distinguish between them, as you said, correct? Does that mean that to , say, a diabetic, eating a spoonful of white refined sugar, brown sugar, or honey really does not make much of a difference, since it will still effect their glucose and insulin levels?

Also, I forget if you ever mentioned this, you may have: What are your views on the famous/infamous "Atkin's Diet"?

I spoke with one guy who was on it some time back, and I was amazed: he told me he would eat, at his standard sit-down dinner, something like a whole chicken, a steak, and alot of butter, but, he would eat zero bread, very very low carbs, and maybe a little bit of lettuce here and there, as far as green salad type stuff went, and no fruit or sugars.

Also, check this out, i found this really crazy but its part of our modern lawsuit happy society:

http://consumerist.com/2011/02/18/man-s ... -eat-rice/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The diner ate all the fish and left the rice, said he has diabetes and can't eat the rice because of the carbs.

" The plaintiff went into the restaurant to take advantage of its $28 all-you-can-eat sushi offer. But when the man began only eating the raw fish and leaving the rice behind, the restaurant’s owner informed him that he’d have to eat the rice too, since sushi, by definition, always includes rice. Raw fish on its own is sashimi.

The diner replied that he can’t eat the rice because he has diabetes. The owner offered to sell him two orders of sashimi for $25, $3 less than the sushi deal, but the man declined.

Instead, he left after paying a la carte prices for the sushi he’d picked at.

Two weeks later, it was lawsuit time.

The man seeks at least $4,000 in damages for the “humiliation, embarrassment and mental anguish” he claimed to have suffered after being discriminated against “on the basis of his disability.” The L.A. Times reports that he’s offered to drop the suit in return for a payment of $6,000."


I once went to a sushi place (which was cool because I also got into a friendly conversation with some of the sushi chefs during their break; we discussed Japanese knives and laminated steel, one of them told me he was pleased to see a customer who was interested in their cutting tools, as most aren't :) )and two guys sitting near me ordered a whole platter of sushi. After eating some of it, they very rudely started (loudly) complaining that the "fish tastes like it's been rotten for four days", and were going to leave and not pay! The owner and staff came over as well as the sushi chefs themselves and showed the two men in PRINT on the menu where the rules say you must eat all the rice and anything you leave uneaten you have to pay for, ie, as if its ala carte. Both men actually cussed at the restaurant owner and I was pretty surprised. I probably should have stayed out of it but I happened to like the workers there and I spoke up for them; I said to both men "Thats rude of you. The rules are clearly laid out on the menu, you saw them before you ordered your sushi", they yelled at me to "butt out" and I didn't say anything else.

Finally, the owner had one of his workers go outside and returned with a police officer, who looked over the situation and told the two men they had to pay for what they ordered. Both paid and left, said they'd never return to that restaurant.

I was honestly surprised to see an incident like this but I wonder how common that is?

There was an incident I read about in which a couple was on the Atkins Diet, and went to one of those all you can eat buffets that have the full range of stuff (steaks, seafood, salad, pasta, etc). They were eating only the meats (beef, pork, chicken, etc) and leaving the bread, rice, pasta, salad alone. According to what I read, the owner of the establishment complained that they were eating too much of the more expensive protein foods like meat and leaving the cheaper carbohydrate stuff like bread alone. They told him they were on the Atkins Diet and could not eat the carbs; he told them they could not just order the meat; they supposedly turned around and sued the restaurant over this. Here is a link that may be about them: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/no-carb-die ... om-buffet/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; " The couple are finishing their second week of the Atkins Diet, which requires taking in little to no carbohydrates, and they eat at Chuck-A-Rama's $8.99 buffet at least twice a week because of its convenience.

"You can just go there and just eat meat," said Leota, a mother of two.

Johanson said there's no written policy for what patrons can or can't eat, or for the size of their portions. But the restaurant reserves the right to talk to patrons if they abuse the buffet — a rare occurrence, he said.
"

Here's a related one:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink ... -much.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[twinboysdad]

Short answer, less processed is better than processed and wild caught, free range, grass fed, organic diet for your protein before it is harvested is better than the stuff from "big box" bought in mass quantity. Be prepared to pay more

[tvenuto]

tvenuto, that is by the way another question I have, thank you for mentioning this:

When it comes to sugars and sweeteners, of the natural kind, ie, cane sugar, beet sugar, molasses, honey, the human body does not distinguish between them, as you said, correct? Does that mean that to , say, a diabetic, eating a spoonful of white refined sugar, brown sugar, or honey really does not make much of a difference, since it will still effect their glucose and insulin levels?

That's not really what I said. I said that, in particular, HFCS was made to mimic the composition of table sugar, and thus, your body would not have a significantly different reaction to it. All of your examples will still affect blood glucose, of course, but they will each have different effects based on the Glycemic Index (GI) of each, as well as the chemical composition. See this site for the GI of different sweeteners.

As you can see, the GI ranges widely, but HFCS and sucrose (table/white sugar) are very close for the reason noted. Two notes about the site:
1. I have no idea if any of those values are accurate, and...
2. The GI doesn't really tell the whole story. Fructose has a lower GI because it must be processed by your liver. Thus, sweeteners that are higher in fructose will have a lower GI, which might seem good, but there is evidence that this load on your liver (which does many things for you) may have negative health consequences.

In general, most people don't need to worry about the chemical composition of their sweetener. This is like arguing which octane level will make your Yugo go fastest. Stop eating a ton of sugar, and stop driving the Yugo.

Also, I forget if you ever mentioned this, you may have: What are your views on the famous/infamous "Atkin's Diet"?

I spoke with one guy who was on it some time back, and I was amazed: he told me he would eat, at his standard sit-down dinner, something like a whole chicken, a steak, and alot of butter, but, he would eat zero bread, very very low carbs, and maybe a little bit of lettuce here and there, as far as green salad type stuff went, and no fruit or sugars.

As always, it very much depends on current state and goals, but it can be a productive concept for someone who is "hopelessly" carb addicted. The reason you note it's fame/infamy is that it was the appropriate solution for some, and the inappropriate solution for others, but due to marketing necessity was billed as the solution for everyone.

I would add that people tend to overstate these things to impress their friends. So he sat down and ate an entire chicken, and then felt the need to cook a steak? I have never in my life felt the need to do this, and I spent a period of time attempting to gain as much weight as physically possible (I gained 1lb per day for two weeks).

Also, check this out, i found this really crazy but its part of our modern lawsuit happy society:

Yes, the litigious state of our society is regrettable.

[Cliff Stamp]

Does that mean that to , say, a diabetic, eating a spoonful of white refined sugar, brown sugar, or honey really does not make much of a difference, since it will still effect their glucose and insulin levels?

Anyone with insulin sensitivity will have an adverse reaction to any such foods. However, there is a wealth of literature on the subject of certain foods causing such issues to greater/lesser degrees. These are due to both direct and indirect effects. Fructose for example is very different than glucose in how it is digested and the general response of the body and aside from very particular instances (severe glycogen depletion in endurance athletes) an argument could be made to never eat it.

However some sweetners are by their nature very limiting because they have a much higher sweet level. There are substances which are MUCH sweeter than glucose and thus the amount of them you need to add is much smaller hence to achieve a particular taste you consume much less of them. Many of the artificial sweeteners use these. There is also growing use of the massive macro sugars which are so complex they can't be readily digested (they are often used in the sugar free candies).

In general, there is growing literature on the fact that any very simple carbohydrate has optimal healthy levels which are very low, healthy meaning resistance to disease and aging. The levels are so low you are likely to be surprised, daily values which are less than one normal sized bottle of coke for example. However before you spazz on never drinking another can of mountain dew, realize that being "optimal" anything is very difficult.

he told me he would eat, at his standard sit-down dinner, something like a whole chicken, a steak, and alot of butter...

Everyone on the internets can bench at least 300 lbs for reps and/or does at least 2X bodyweight. A ketogenic diet has a number of advantages for weight loss as it promotes direct fat burning but the greatest effect is likely that it has a very high satiety effect (you feel full) and the desire to eat to excess is limited. If you eat 2 whole chickens for supper, regardless of the fact you don't have a baked potato, you likely have vastly over balanced your metabolic response and you will end up storing fat. For some people ketogenic diets are wonderful as they are naturally heavy meat/fat eaters, but someone who naturally has a high carbohydrate diet will struggle because they will feel severely restricted.

[eidah]

Anyone with insulin sensitivity will have an adverse reaction to any such foods. .

That is BS. Insulin sensitivity is a good thing and we all want to be insulin sensitive. Insulin resistance is a bad thing where your body reacts badly to carbs and sugars. This wont stop you from arguing though as you know everything Cliff Not only about knives but EVERYTHING.

[tvenuto]

Anyone with insulin sensitivity will have an adverse reaction to any such foods. .

That is BS. Insulin sensitivity is a good thing and we all want to be insulin sensitive. Insulin resistance is a bad thing where your body reacts badly to carbs and sugars.

Well, it is and it isn't. It really depends on what you mean.

I have high insulin sensitivity due to not eating much sugar or refined carbohydrates (grains). As you mentioned, this is a good thing, as I don't need to release much insulin for my cells to store sugars in my blood. However, this also means if I eat a large piece of cake and wash it down with a soda, I'll feel like death for about an hour, and may even get a "sugar hangover." Although my insulin sensitivity is high, my body just isn't used to releasing that much in one go. So, if this is the "adverse reaction" he means, then it is correct.

Insulin resistance is bad, but these people are used to eating large amounts of carbohydrates, so they won't feel anything when eating the cake. It's playing havoc on their endocrine system for sure, but they won't notice.

So it's all context, and best to clarify what someone is referring to before jumping on them.

[eidah]

Anyone with insulin sensitivity will have an adverse reaction to any such foods. .

That is BS. Insulin sensitivity is a good thing and we all want to be insulin sensitive. Insulin resistance is a bad thing where your body reacts badly to carbs and sugars.

Well, it is and it isn't. It really depends on what you mean.

I have high insulin sensitivity due to not eating much sugar or refined carbohydrates (grains). As you mentioned, this is a good thing, as I don't need to release much insulin for my cells to store sugars in my blood. However, this also means if I eat a large piece of cake and wash it down with a soda, I'll feel like death for about an hour, and may even get a "sugar hangover." Although my insulin sensitivity is high, my body just isn't used to releasing that much in one go. So, if this is the "adverse reaction" he means, then it is correct.

Insulin resistance is bad, but these people are used to eating large amounts of carbohydrates, so they won't feel anything when eating the cake. It's playing havoc on their endocrine system for sure, but they won't notice.

So it's all context, and best to clarify what someone is referring to before jumping on them.

No, What you have is physiological insulin resistance not (pathological). If you go on a low carb diet for a long time and suddenly eat carbs, Your body does not know what to do with all that carb load because it becomes a fat burning metabolism. It goes away as you slowly introduce carbs.
Insulin is the key that drives fat OR glucose into cells. When you are insulin sensitive, your muscles drink up the glucose in your blood so fast in response to insulin. When you become insulin resistant , the glucose keeps floating in your blood and the muscles do respond to insulin that tells them to drink up the glucose and release it as heat or store it as glycogen. It finally gets stored as fat.

[tvenuto]

No, What you have is physiological insulin resistance not (pathological). If you go on a low carb diet for a long time and suddenly eat carbs, Your body does not know what to do with all that carb load because it becomes a fat burning metabolism. It goes away as you slowly introduce carbs.
Insulin is the key that drives fat OR glucose into cells. When you are insulin sensitive, your muscles drink up the glucose in your blood so fast in response to insulin. When you become insulin resistant , the glucose keeps floating in your blood and the muscles do respond to insulin that tells them to drink up the glucose and release it as heat or store it as glycogen. It finally gets stored as fat.

I'm unsure what your response has to do with my post, it appears we are describing the same thing. Also, your first sentence is unclear, which makes it difficult to understand what exactly you are disagreeing with.

I'm aware of insulin's role in the clearance of blood glucose. I'm aware that if you slowly introduce carbs, you will become more tolerant to carbs. I'm aware that the insulin sensitivity of your cells is not the direct cause of the effect noted, but they are concomitant. The "adverse reaction" to carbohydrates I stated is real, and it seems you have described the same thing. Thus, what Cliff said is not "BS," which was my point. He did not say that having insulin sensitivity itself was a pathological condition, which is something you appear to be assuming.

[paladin]

tvenuto...what have you learned about Stevia? In your opinion is it a safe & beneficial alternative to sugar for beverages?

I have switched from sodas to flavored waters which contain Stevia as my main beverage for enjoyment/flavor.

I noticeably feel better after drinking these (as compared to drinking sodas). Purely anecdotal, I confess :o

[Cliff Stamp]

Well, it is and it isn't. It really depends on what you mean.

It was poorly worded, as written it isn't true or false as it is meaningless. Insulin sensitivity is simply the response to insulin, everyone (aside from a select few) are insulin sensitive as they react to insulin. The issue comes when your insulin sensitivity is outside of normal/healthy ranges and is either very high or very low. A Type I diabetic with a high insulin sensitivity can easily become hypoglycemic for example. In those cases where insulin sensitivity is well outside of healthy ranges your body is no longer well capable of handling high amounts of simple sugars. In short, what I meant to write is anyone with an insulin sensitivity disorder would react adversely to large amounts of those sugars. Yes some sugars have better nutrient profiles, honey vs refined glucose, but the raw insulin response is more important to some than the additional nutrient profile of the honey.

[tvenuto]

tvenuto...what have you learned about Stevia? In your opinion is it a safe & beneficial alternative to sugar for beverages?

I have switched from sodas to flavored waters which contain Stevia as my main beverage for enjoyment/flavor.

I noticeably feel better after drinking these (as compared to drinking sodas). Purely anecdotal, I confess :o

Given that I think soft drinks are probably the worst thing we consistently consume, I think you definitely made a positive change by eliminating them. Stevia is nice because it comes from a plant, and very little of the sweet compound is needed to create the taste. However, you should know that even non-caloric sweeteners can stimulate insulin release, and there is an important link between your taste buds and how they prepare the rest of you to digest your food more effectively. This same question was asked in my fitness thread (I believe they specifically asked about diet soda), and this was my response:

Good question! I view them as maybe slightly better than the alternative, but in general these things are to be avoided. If you're used to swilling 2 liters of soda per day, switching to diet might be a step in the right direction, but if you stop there, I don't really think you've improved all that much.

First, I hope I've impressed upon everyone that how healthy you are, and whether or not you gain or lose weight is far more than purely the # of calories you eat versus burn. Carbs, in general, stimulate the release of insulin which is a storage hormone. It comes as a surprise to many that your body does not want to have sugar in the blood over a certain level, and it gets it out of your blood one way or another. It either: stores it in your muscles which have depleted their stores due to physical activity, stores it in your liver (for later distribution around the body), or stores it as fat. Once again, all of this is incredibly oversimplified but we're staying in the realm of the practical.

***Now I don't want people to fear carbs and insulin as evil. They are not. To survive you must store energy sometimes and release it at other times. However it's the sad fact that due to our Modern American Diets, many people are in the storage state almost constantly.***

The reason I went into all of that, is that your tongue is not there purely for your enjoyment (take that however you like)! It has a job to do, and part of that is detecting carbohydrates in food, and communicating to your body what the necessary response is going to be. Kind of like stealing signs as a batter. You eat some carbs, your tongue senses this in advance, and your pancreas queues up the correct amount of insulin even before these things hit your gut (intestines, where things are actually absorbed). Your blood sugar stays even and all is well. But then you drink some diet soda, and the system gets confused, you release insulin but there's not any carbs to store (study 1, study 2, study 3). Blood sugar drops, and you may actually start to crave carbs (or at least more sweet taste). After a while, your body says, "screw it" and may not release any insulin in response to a sweet taste. But this time, you actually did eat carbs, and your blood sugar spikes because a little insulin wasn't waiting to usher it to the right places. Now the body goes into crisis mode, and throws out a buttload of insulin, which stores the sugar but then your blood sugar is too low, and you crave carbs once again. In short, the use of artificial sweeteners has the potential to wreck the way your body deals with maintaining blood chemistry levels.

So, if you drink a little diet soda with a meal you're probably minimizing these effects and you won't die. However, if you walk around with one of those beer helmets drinking diet soda constantly, I would say you're playing with your endocrine system in a detrimental way. Also, I would ask: what's the need for that extremely sweet taste constantly? I mean, for you, not in general. I'd examine that if I felt a constant need to sub artificial sweeteners for sugar.

As an interesting aside, your body has really prioritized the proper control of insulin. This study looked at how we view food (visually) in the presence or absence of insulin. In healthy subjects insulin changed how the subjects responded to mere pictures of food. In the obese subjects, it did not, indicating that obese people have somehow broken a link between how we view food and our current hormonal state (or that the absence of this link was a contributing factor to their obesity).

[Cliff Stamp]

However, you should know that even non-caloric sweeteners can stimulate insulin release, and there is an important link between your taste buds and how they prepare the rest of you to digest your food more effectively.

That was one of those things that people suspected for a long time as zero-calorie drinks and sugar-free snacks almost flooded the market over night but after significant time on the market there was no significant impact on obesity levels. But yet if you looked at the numbers on a very naive level it was an immediate large caloric change. It was one of those things which a lot of people thought was the classic too good to be true, all you can eat/drink with no calories.

A lot of anecdotal reports were common with people eliminating diet sodas and noting a strong response and arguing that diet drinks were almost if not as problematic as high sugar drinks. A lot of animal studies revealed a number of possible causes and recent review articles have shown similar trends in people. The short form is that most people agree that sugar-free foods are maybe not as bad as high sugar foods, but they are definitely not the savior that a lot of people thought they were.

That main issue is that the human body is so complex it makes steels trivial in comparison. If we take 100 bars of S30V and subject them to the same thermal processing, there will be only minor differences in the results and in fact since the material tolerances are known you can even predict the ranges of behavior in the results. But take 100 people and the variability is on a completely different level, it would be similar to just talking 100 bars of steel (of any type) and subjecting them to the same thermal processing.