Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
OT: Bizarre, my cat loves sucralose
127 views
Skip to first unread message
Bryan
Aug 27, 2012, 9:42:08 PM8/27/12
to
My crazy cat goes ape over a spoon dipped into sucralose. I didn't give her much, since it hasn't been studied in cats. Obviously, I don't want to hurt her. I just let her taste it because she heard the crunch of the packet, and associated the sound with cat treats, but she licked the spoon, and begged for more. Weird.
I was adding a tiny bit of sucralose to a very dry low carb beer when I discovered this. Lite by Miller is enhanced by a tiny amount of sucralose. I imagine the Michelob Ultra and MB Light might be similarly affected.
--Bryan
I was adding a tiny bit of sucralose to a very dry low carb beer when I discovered this. Lite by Miller is enhanced by a tiny amount of sucralose. I imagine the Michelob Ultra and MB Light might be similarly affected.
--Bryan
ImStillMags
Aug 28, 2012, 10:29:04 AM8/28/12
to
to your cat, please.
ImStillMags
Aug 28, 2012, 10:30:41 AM8/28/12
to
On Aug 27, 6:42 pm, Bryan <bryangsimm...@gmail.com> wrote:
Message has been deleted
Roy
Aug 28, 2012, 12:31:44 PM8/28/12
to Knews...@gmail.com
On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 9:02:23 AM UTC-6, The Other Guy wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 07:30:41 -0700 (PDT), ImStillMags
>
> <sitar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://articles.mercola.com
>
>
>
> Mercola is the WORST POSSIBLE site you can use for medical info!!!
>
>
For sure...that site itself IS POISONOUS. So much mis-information and
down-right LIES.
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 07:30:41 -0700 (PDT), ImStillMags
>
> <sitar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://articles.mercola.com
>
>
>
> Mercola is the WORST POSSIBLE site you can use for medical info!!!
>
>
For sure...that site itself IS POISONOUS. So much mis-information and
down-right LIES.
Message has been deleted
Hell Toupee
Aug 28, 2012, 12:52:21 PM8/28/12
to
On 8/28/2012 11:47 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
> ignore your posts from now on.
>
> Cats like several sweeteners. Petromalt contains corn syrup, malt
> extract syrup, and glycerin - all sweeteners. And most cats will eat
> that stuff up.
Cats can't taste sweet. They're carnivores. They lack the taste
receptors for sweet stuff because they're carnivores. Doesn't stop
humans from adding sweeteners to stuff for cats, or feeding them sweet
foods. Doesn't mean the cat notices the sweet stuff.
...So far, cats are alone among mammals in lacking the sweet gene;
even close relatives among the meat-eaters like hyenas and mongooses
have it. And cats may lack other components of the ability to enjoy
(and digest) sugars, such as glucokinase in their livers—a key enzyme
that controls the metabolism of carbohydrates and prevents glucose
from flooding the animal. Despite this, most major pet food
manufacturers use corn or other grains in their meals. "This may be
why cats are getting diabetes," Brand offers. "Cat food today has
around 20 percent carbohydrates. The cats are not used to that, they
can't handle it."
--
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=strange-but-true-cats-cannot-taste-sweets
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 18:42:08 -0700 (PDT), Bryan wrote:
>
>> My crazy cat goes ape over a spoon dipped into sucralose. I didn't
>> give her much, since it hasn't been studied in cats. Obviously, I
>> don't want to hurt her. I just let her taste it because she heard
>> the crunch of the packet, and associated the sound with cat treats,
>> but she licked the spoon, and begged for more. Weird.
>
> I fixed your paragraph for you. Last time I'll do that - I'll just
>
>> My crazy cat goes ape over a spoon dipped into sucralose. I didn't
>> give her much, since it hasn't been studied in cats. Obviously, I
>> don't want to hurt her. I just let her taste it because she heard
>> the crunch of the packet, and associated the sound with cat treats,
>> but she licked the spoon, and begged for more. Weird.
>
> ignore your posts from now on.
>
> Cats like several sweeteners. Petromalt contains corn syrup, malt
> extract syrup, and glycerin - all sweeteners. And most cats will eat
> that stuff up.
Cats can't taste sweet. They're carnivores. They lack the taste
receptors for sweet stuff because they're carnivores. Doesn't stop
humans from adding sweeteners to stuff for cats, or feeding them sweet
foods. Doesn't mean the cat notices the sweet stuff.
...So far, cats are alone among mammals in lacking the sweet gene;
even close relatives among the meat-eaters like hyenas and mongooses
have it. And cats may lack other components of the ability to enjoy
(and digest) sugars, such as glucokinase in their livers—a key enzyme
that controls the metabolism of carbohydrates and prevents glucose
from flooding the animal. Despite this, most major pet food
manufacturers use corn or other grains in their meals. "This may be
why cats are getting diabetes," Brand offers. "Cat food today has
around 20 percent carbohydrates. The cats are not used to that, they
can't handle it."
--
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=strange-but-true-cats-cannot-taste-sweets
Message has been deleted
George M. Middius
Aug 28, 2012, 1:42:05 PM8/28/12
to
ImStillMags wrote:
[sucralose]
> Neither one of you should consume that poison.
How do you figure?
[sucralose]
> Neither one of you should consume that poison.
Chemo
Aug 28, 2012, 1:52:26 PM8/28/12
to
Message has been deleted
Nunya Bidnits
Aug 28, 2012, 2:18:04 PM8/28/12
to
"Sqwertz" <swe...@cluemail.compost> wrote in message
news:yuwd0g29...@sqwertz.com...
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 18:42:08 -0700 (PDT), Bryan wrote:
>
>
>> My crazy cat goes ape over a spoon dipped into sucralose. I didn't
>> give her much, since it hasn't been studied in cats. Obviously, I
>> don't want to hurt her. I just let her taste it because she heard
>> the crunch of the packet, and associated the sound with cat treats,
>> but she licked the spoon, and begged for more. Weird.
>
>> give her much, since it hasn't been studied in cats. Obviously, I
>> don't want to hurt her. I just let her taste it because she heard
>> the crunch of the packet, and associated the sound with cat treats,
>> but she licked the spoon, and begged for more. Weird.
>
> I fixed your paragraph for you. Last time I'll do that - I'll just
> ignore your posts from now on.
>
> Cats like several sweeteners. Petromalt contains corn syrup, malt
> extract syrup, and glycerin - all sweeteners. And most cats will eat
> that stuff up.
>
> -sw
> ignore your posts from now on.
>
> Cats like several sweeteners. Petromalt contains corn syrup, malt
> extract syrup, and glycerin - all sweeteners. And most cats will eat
> that stuff up.
>
I can't get that stuff into my cats in any form. They will detect it hidden
in food and walk away. If you do as the vet says and more or less force feed
it, they try to shake their heads and spit it out. It's really a nice
addition to carpeting.
If the issue is constipation or hairballs, Metamucil (or a copy) works well,
mixed into canned food with a tiny bit of extra water. In the case of
constipation, which is caused by many dry foods, cats can take a stool
softener (as recommended by my vet) as a last resort. But the Metamucil
makes that unnecessary and is better for my older cats.
Cats naturally consume vegetation of various kinds for digestion and clearly
some fiber aids their digestion. This is especially true for older indoor
cats. I think the negative hype about grains, which supply fiber, is just a
load of crap intended to get people to buy seriously overpriced "natural"
food.
MartyB
Nunya Bidnits
Aug 28, 2012, 2:20:09 PM8/28/12
to
"Hell Toupee" <w...@menull.com> wrote in message
news:k1it02$1t2$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
> Cats can't taste sweet. They're carnivores. They lack the taste receptors
> for sweet stuff because they're carnivores.
Pardon me if I'm skeptical. I'll be seeing my vet tomorrow and will ask him
> Cats can't taste sweet. They're carnivores. They lack the taste receptors
> for sweet stuff because they're carnivores.
to confirm that.
MartyB
ImStillMags
Aug 28, 2012, 2:37:15 PM8/28/12
to
On Aug 28, 9:56 am, Sqwertz <swe...@cluemail.compost> wrote:
> picture of a person who looks like they got sunburn on their neck or
> are having a reaction to their laundry detergent. The picture is not
> indicative of a food allergy - it's much too localized.
>
> -sw
Why Do You Need to Know About Splenda?
Splenda, best known for its marketing ploy, "made from sugar so it
tastes like sugar," has taken the sweetener industry by storm. Splenda
has become the nation's number one selling artificial sweetener in a
very short period of time.
Between 2000 and 2004, the percentage of US households using Splenda
products jumped from 3 to 20 percent. In a one year period, Splenda
sales topped $177 million compared with $62 million spent on aspartame-
based Equal and $52 million on saccharin-based Sweet 'N Low.
McNeil Nutritionals, in their marketing pitch for Splenda emphasizes
that Splenda has endured some of the most rigorous testing to date for
any food additive. Enough so to convince the average consumer that it
is in fact safe. They claim that over 100 studies have been conducted
on Splenda. What they don't tell you is that most of the studies are
on animals.
Additional Concerns About Splenda Studies
There have been no long-term human toxicity studies published until
after the FDA approved sucralose for human consumption. Following FDA
approval a human toxicity trial was conducted, but lasted only three
months, hardly the length of time most Splenda users plan to consume
sucralose. No studies have ever been done on children or pregnant
women.
Much of the controversy surrounding Splenda does not focus just on its
safety, but rather on its false advertising claims. The competition
among sweeteners is anything but sweet. The sugar industry is
currently suing McNeil Nutritionals for implying that Splenda is a
natural form of sugar with no calories.
Is It REALLY Sugar?
There is no question that sucralose starts off as a sugar molecule, it
is what goes on in the factory that is concerning. Sucralose is a
synthetic chemical that was originally cooked up in a laboratory. In
the five step patented process of making sucralose, three chlorine
molecules are added to a sucrose or sugar molecule. A sucrose molecule
is a disaccharide that contains two single sugars bound together;
glucose and fructose.
The chemical process to make sucralose alters the chemical composition
of the sugar so much that it is somehow converted to a fructo-
galactose molecule. This type of sugar molecule does not occur in
nature and therefore your body does not possess the ability to
properly metabolize it. As a result of this "unique" biochemical make-
up, McNeil Nutritionals makes its claim that Splenda is not digested
or metabolized by the body, making it have zero calories.
It is not that Splenda is naturally zero calories. If your body had
the capacity to metabolize it then it would no longer have zero
calories.
How Much Splenda is Left In Your Body After You Eat It?
If you look at the research (which is primarily extrapolated form
animal studies) you will see that in fact 15% of sucralose is absorbed
into your digestive system and ultimately is stored in your body. To
reach a number such as 15% means some people absorb more and some
people absorb less. In one human study, one of the eight participants
did not excrete any sucralose even after 3 days. Clearly his body was
absorbing and metabolizing this chemical. That is what our bodies are
supposed to do.
The bottom line is that we all have our own unique biochemical make-
up. Some of you will absorb and metabolize more than others. If you
are healthy and your digestive system works well, you may be at higher
risk for breaking down this product in your stomach and intestines.
Please understand that it is impossible for the manufacturers of
Splenda to make any guarantees based on their limited animal data.
If you feel that Splenda affects you adversely, it is valid. Don"t let
someone convince you that it is all in your head. You know your body
better than anyone else.
How to Determine if Splenda is Harming You
The best way to determine if Splenda or sucralose is affecting you is
to perform an elimination/challenge with it. First eliminate it and
other artificial sweeteners from your diet completely for a period of
one to two weeks. After this period reintroduce it in sufficient
quantity.
For example, use it in your beverage in the morning, and eat at least
two sucralose containing products the remainder of the day. On this
day, avoid other artificial sweeteners so that you are able to
differentiate which one may be causing a problem for you. Do this for
a period of one to three days. Take notice of how your body is
feeling, particularly if it feels different than when you were
artificial sweetener free.
Splenda May Still Be Harming You
If you complete the elimination/challenge trial described above and do
not notice any changes then it appears you are able to tolerate
Splenda acutely. However, please understand that you are not out of
the woods yet.
The entire issue of long-term safety has never been established. Let's
look at the facts again:
•There have only been six human trials to date
•The longest trial lasted three months
•At LEAST 15% of Splenda is not excreted from your body in a timely
manner
Considering that Splenda bears more chemical similarity to DDT than it
does to sugar, are you willing to bet your health on this data?
Remember that fat soluble substances, such as DDT, can remain in your
fat for decades and devastate your health.
If the above facts don't concern because you believe the FDA would not
ever allow a toxic substance into the market then read on.
Do You Really Believe These People Are Going to Protect You?
Please consider that the only organizations between you and
potentially toxic side effects are the FDA and the manufacturers of
sucralose (Tate & Lyle) and of Splenda (McNeil Nutritionals).
The FDA has a long standing history of ineffective screening and
rampant conflict of interests as demonstrated in their inability to
identify Vioxx as too dangerous to be on the market. This mistake cost
55,000 people their lives.
Now the point I want you to understand here, because it is really
important, is that Splenda is not a drug and is only a food additive.
As such the number of studies required to receive FDA approval is
substantially less than drug. Vioxx had an order of magnitude of more
comprehensive clinical trials than Splenda ever did, and despite this
rigorous approval process it still killed 55,000 people.
So, now you have the primary concerns I have about Splenda and the
choices is yours.
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 08:01:48 -0700, The Other Guy wrote:
> > On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 07:30:41 -0700 (PDT), ImStillMags
> > <sitara8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>http://articles.mercola.com
>
> > Mercola is the WORST POSSIBLE site you can use for medical info!!!
>
> There was information there? All I saw was some unsubstantiated
> > On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 07:30:41 -0700 (PDT), ImStillMags
> > <sitara8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>http://articles.mercola.com
>
> > Mercola is the WORST POSSIBLE site you can use for medical info!!!
>
> picture of a person who looks like they got sunburn on their neck or
> are having a reaction to their laundry detergent. The picture is not
> indicative of a food allergy - it's much too localized.
>
> -sw
Why Do You Need to Know About Splenda?
Splenda, best known for its marketing ploy, "made from sugar so it
tastes like sugar," has taken the sweetener industry by storm. Splenda
has become the nation's number one selling artificial sweetener in a
very short period of time.
Between 2000 and 2004, the percentage of US households using Splenda
products jumped from 3 to 20 percent. In a one year period, Splenda
sales topped $177 million compared with $62 million spent on aspartame-
based Equal and $52 million on saccharin-based Sweet 'N Low.
McNeil Nutritionals, in their marketing pitch for Splenda emphasizes
that Splenda has endured some of the most rigorous testing to date for
any food additive. Enough so to convince the average consumer that it
is in fact safe. They claim that over 100 studies have been conducted
on Splenda. What they don't tell you is that most of the studies are
on animals.
Additional Concerns About Splenda Studies
There have been no long-term human toxicity studies published until
after the FDA approved sucralose for human consumption. Following FDA
approval a human toxicity trial was conducted, but lasted only three
months, hardly the length of time most Splenda users plan to consume
sucralose. No studies have ever been done on children or pregnant
women.
Much of the controversy surrounding Splenda does not focus just on its
safety, but rather on its false advertising claims. The competition
among sweeteners is anything but sweet. The sugar industry is
currently suing McNeil Nutritionals for implying that Splenda is a
natural form of sugar with no calories.
Is It REALLY Sugar?
There is no question that sucralose starts off as a sugar molecule, it
is what goes on in the factory that is concerning. Sucralose is a
synthetic chemical that was originally cooked up in a laboratory. In
the five step patented process of making sucralose, three chlorine
molecules are added to a sucrose or sugar molecule. A sucrose molecule
is a disaccharide that contains two single sugars bound together;
glucose and fructose.
The chemical process to make sucralose alters the chemical composition
of the sugar so much that it is somehow converted to a fructo-
galactose molecule. This type of sugar molecule does not occur in
nature and therefore your body does not possess the ability to
properly metabolize it. As a result of this "unique" biochemical make-
up, McNeil Nutritionals makes its claim that Splenda is not digested
or metabolized by the body, making it have zero calories.
It is not that Splenda is naturally zero calories. If your body had
the capacity to metabolize it then it would no longer have zero
calories.
How Much Splenda is Left In Your Body After You Eat It?
If you look at the research (which is primarily extrapolated form
animal studies) you will see that in fact 15% of sucralose is absorbed
into your digestive system and ultimately is stored in your body. To
reach a number such as 15% means some people absorb more and some
people absorb less. In one human study, one of the eight participants
did not excrete any sucralose even after 3 days. Clearly his body was
absorbing and metabolizing this chemical. That is what our bodies are
supposed to do.
The bottom line is that we all have our own unique biochemical make-
up. Some of you will absorb and metabolize more than others. If you
are healthy and your digestive system works well, you may be at higher
risk for breaking down this product in your stomach and intestines.
Please understand that it is impossible for the manufacturers of
Splenda to make any guarantees based on their limited animal data.
If you feel that Splenda affects you adversely, it is valid. Don"t let
someone convince you that it is all in your head. You know your body
better than anyone else.
How to Determine if Splenda is Harming You
The best way to determine if Splenda or sucralose is affecting you is
to perform an elimination/challenge with it. First eliminate it and
other artificial sweeteners from your diet completely for a period of
one to two weeks. After this period reintroduce it in sufficient
quantity.
For example, use it in your beverage in the morning, and eat at least
two sucralose containing products the remainder of the day. On this
day, avoid other artificial sweeteners so that you are able to
differentiate which one may be causing a problem for you. Do this for
a period of one to three days. Take notice of how your body is
feeling, particularly if it feels different than when you were
artificial sweetener free.
Splenda May Still Be Harming You
If you complete the elimination/challenge trial described above and do
not notice any changes then it appears you are able to tolerate
Splenda acutely. However, please understand that you are not out of
the woods yet.
The entire issue of long-term safety has never been established. Let's
look at the facts again:
•There have only been six human trials to date
•The longest trial lasted three months
•At LEAST 15% of Splenda is not excreted from your body in a timely
manner
Considering that Splenda bears more chemical similarity to DDT than it
does to sugar, are you willing to bet your health on this data?
Remember that fat soluble substances, such as DDT, can remain in your
fat for decades and devastate your health.
If the above facts don't concern because you believe the FDA would not
ever allow a toxic substance into the market then read on.
Do You Really Believe These People Are Going to Protect You?
Please consider that the only organizations between you and
potentially toxic side effects are the FDA and the manufacturers of
sucralose (Tate & Lyle) and of Splenda (McNeil Nutritionals).
The FDA has a long standing history of ineffective screening and
rampant conflict of interests as demonstrated in their inability to
identify Vioxx as too dangerous to be on the market. This mistake cost
55,000 people their lives.
Now the point I want you to understand here, because it is really
important, is that Splenda is not a drug and is only a food additive.
As such the number of studies required to receive FDA approval is
substantially less than drug. Vioxx had an order of magnitude of more
comprehensive clinical trials than Splenda ever did, and despite this
rigorous approval process it still killed 55,000 people.
So, now you have the primary concerns I have about Splenda and the
choices is yours.
George M. Middius
Aug 28, 2012, 2:49:36 PM8/28/12
to
ImStillMags wrote:
> Why Do You Need to Know About Splenda?
> Why Do You Need to Know About Splenda?
> The chemical process to make sucralose alters the chemical composition
> of the sugar so much that it is somehow converted to a fructo-
> galactose molecule. This type of sugar molecule does not occur in
> nature and therefore your body does not possess the ability to
> properly metabolize it.
If that's why you call it "poison", you're out to lunch. For one
> of the sugar so much that it is somehow converted to a fructo-
> galactose molecule. This type of sugar molecule does not occur in
> nature and therefore your body does not possess the ability to
> properly metabolize it.
thing, the word "properly" is not defined. For another, whether a food
additive is "natural" or manufactured does not in itself determine to
what degree it can be metabolized. And third, what may be true of one
segment of the human race is not necessarily true of other segments.
> So, now you have the primary concerns I have about Splenda and the
> choices is yours.
I, for one, have no idea why you think sucralose is "poison". All that
blather from that site boils down to "not enough is known about
sucralose to make some of us feel it's 100% safe to consume". That's a
far cry from "poison".
Chemo
Aug 28, 2012, 2:55:29 PM8/28/12
to
Hell Toupee
Aug 28, 2012, 2:58:38 PM8/28/12
to
Message has been deleted
J. Clarke
Aug 28, 2012, 3:02:01 PM8/28/12
to
In article <k1it02$1t2$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, w...@menull.com says...
involved in tasting sweetness. This appears to be a classic example of
someone advocating a theoretical model that is not in accordance with
observation--cats seem to like a great many sweet things, including
ethylene glycol (one kind of antifreeze) which will kill them painfully.
The notion that creatures which eat meat have no need for recognizing
sweetness is in itself based in a flawed notion. Many fats are very
sweet. Glycerine is the precursor for many kinds of fat. Obtain a
sample and taste it and you will likely be very surprised. Any meat-
eating animal is going to want to be sure to get the fat out of its
prey, the fat is easy energy.
>
> On 8/28/2012 11:47 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
> > On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 18:42:08 -0700 (PDT), Bryan wrote:
> >
> >> My crazy cat goes ape over a spoon dipped into sucralose. I didn't
> >> give her much, since it hasn't been studied in cats. Obviously, I
> >> don't want to hurt her. I just let her taste it because she heard
> >> the crunch of the packet, and associated the sound with cat treats,
> >> but she licked the spoon, and begged for more. Weird.
> >
> > I fixed your paragraph for you. Last time I'll do that - I'll just
> > ignore your posts from now on.
> >
> > Cats like several sweeteners. Petromalt contains corn syrup, malt
> > extract syrup, and glycerin - all sweeteners. And most cats will eat
> > that stuff up.
>
> Cats can't taste sweet. They're carnivores. They lack the taste
> receptors for sweet stuff because they're carnivores. Doesn't stop
> humans from adding sweeteners to stuff for cats, or feeding them sweet
> foods. Doesn't mean the cat notices the sweet stuff.
>
> ...So far, cats are alone among mammals in lacking the sweet gene;
> even close relatives among the meat-eaters like hyenas and mongooses
> have it. And cats may lack other components of the ability to enjoy
> (and digest) sugars, such as glucokinase in their livers?a key enzyme
> On 8/28/2012 11:47 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
> > On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 18:42:08 -0700 (PDT), Bryan wrote:
> >
> >> My crazy cat goes ape over a spoon dipped into sucralose. I didn't
> >> give her much, since it hasn't been studied in cats. Obviously, I
> >> don't want to hurt her. I just let her taste it because she heard
> >> the crunch of the packet, and associated the sound with cat treats,
> >> but she licked the spoon, and begged for more. Weird.
> >
> > I fixed your paragraph for you. Last time I'll do that - I'll just
> > ignore your posts from now on.
> >
> > Cats like several sweeteners. Petromalt contains corn syrup, malt
> > extract syrup, and glycerin - all sweeteners. And most cats will eat
> > that stuff up.
>
> Cats can't taste sweet. They're carnivores. They lack the taste
> receptors for sweet stuff because they're carnivores. Doesn't stop
> humans from adding sweeteners to stuff for cats, or feeding them sweet
> foods. Doesn't mean the cat notices the sweet stuff.
>
> ...So far, cats are alone among mammals in lacking the sweet gene;
> even close relatives among the meat-eaters like hyenas and mongooses
> have it. And cats may lack other components of the ability to enjoy
> that controls the metabolism of carbohydrates and prevents glucose
> from flooding the animal. Despite this, most major pet food
> manufacturers use corn or other grains in their meals. "This may be
> why cats are getting diabetes," Brand offers. "Cat food today has
> around 20 percent carbohydrates. The cats are not used to that, they
> can't handle it."
According to the Scientific American article cats lack one of two genes
> from flooding the animal. Despite this, most major pet food
> manufacturers use corn or other grains in their meals. "This may be
> why cats are getting diabetes," Brand offers. "Cat food today has
> around 20 percent carbohydrates. The cats are not used to that, they
> can't handle it."
involved in tasting sweetness. This appears to be a classic example of
someone advocating a theoretical model that is not in accordance with
observation--cats seem to like a great many sweet things, including
ethylene glycol (one kind of antifreeze) which will kill them painfully.
The notion that creatures which eat meat have no need for recognizing
sweetness is in itself based in a flawed notion. Many fats are very
sweet. Glycerine is the precursor for many kinds of fat. Obtain a
sample and taste it and you will likely be very surprised. Any meat-
eating animal is going to want to be sure to get the fat out of its
prey, the fat is easy energy.
John Kuthe
Aug 28, 2012, 6:51:39 PM8/28/12
to
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 11:47:06 -0500, Sqwertz <swe...@cluemail.compost>
Bryan doesn't care, he exists entirely for himself. He is the
definition of egocentric, with a heaping share of ego!
John Kuthe...
wrote:
>On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 18:42:08 -0700 (PDT), Bryan wrote:
>
>On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 18:42:08 -0700 (PDT), Bryan wrote:
>
>> My crazy cat goes ape over a spoon dipped into sucralose. I didn't
>> give her much, since it hasn't been studied in cats. Obviously, I
>> don't want to hurt her. I just let her taste it because she heard
>> the crunch of the packet, and associated the sound with cat treats,
>> but she licked the spoon, and begged for more. Weird.
>
>> give her much, since it hasn't been studied in cats. Obviously, I
>> don't want to hurt her. I just let her taste it because she heard
>> the crunch of the packet, and associated the sound with cat treats,
>> but she licked the spoon, and begged for more. Weird.
>
>I fixed your paragraph for you. Last time I'll do that - I'll just
>ignore your posts from now on.
...
>ignore your posts from now on.
Bryan doesn't care, he exists entirely for himself. He is the
definition of egocentric, with a heaping share of ego!
John Kuthe...
George M. Middius
Aug 28, 2012, 7:30:45 PM8/28/12
to
John Kuthe wrote:
> >I fixed your paragraph for you. Last time I'll do that - I'll just
> >ignore your posts from now on.
> >I fixed your paragraph for you. Last time I'll do that - I'll just
> >ignore your posts from now on.
> Bryan doesn't care, he exists entirely for himself. He is the
> definition of egocentric, with a heaping share of ego!
Can you beat that? sqwishy scolds Bryan, and after Bryan claimed
> definition of egocentric, with a heaping share of ego!
sqwishy is next on the list to be his houseboy. Wondrous stuff.
Mark Thorson
Aug 28, 2012, 9:26:30 PM8/28/12
to
The Other Guy wrote:
>
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 07:30:41 -0700 (PDT), ImStillMags
> <sitar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://articles.mercola.com
>
> Mercola is the WORST POSSIBLE site you can use for medical info!!!
Natural News is worse. Not much worse,
>
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 07:30:41 -0700 (PDT), ImStillMags
> <sitar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://articles.mercola.com
>
> Mercola is the WORST POSSIBLE site you can use for medical info!!!
but worse.
Bryan
Aug 28, 2012, 10:24:04 PM8/28/12
to
--Bryan
Bryan
Aug 28, 2012, 10:34:06 PM8/28/12
to
On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 11:47:12 AM UTC-5, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 18:42:08 -0700 (PDT), Bryan wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 18:42:08 -0700 (PDT), Bryan wrote:
>
>
>
> > My crazy cat goes ape over a spoon dipped into sucralose. I didn't
>
> > give her much, since it hasn't been studied in cats. Obviously, I
>
> > don't want to hurt her. I just let her taste it because she heard
>
> > the crunch of the packet, and associated the sound with cat treats,
>
> > but she licked the spoon, and begged for more. Weird.
>
>
>
>
> > give her much, since it hasn't been studied in cats. Obviously, I
>
> > don't want to hurt her. I just let her taste it because she heard
>
> > the crunch of the packet, and associated the sound with cat treats,
>
> > but she licked the spoon, and begged for more. Weird.
>
>
>
> I fixed your paragraph for you. Last time I'll do that - I'll just
>
> ignore your posts from now on.
>
>
>
>
> ignore your posts from now on.
>
>
>
> Cats like several sweeteners. Petromalt contains corn syrup, malt
>
> extract syrup, and glycerin - all sweeteners. And most cats will eat
>
> that stuff up.
>
Go fuck yourself, Steve. I won't ignore your posts, and will agree with those I agree with publicly. You can dislike me *as a person*, while I continue to be indifferent to you, *as a person*.
>
> extract syrup, and glycerin - all sweeteners. And most cats will eat
>
> that stuff up.
>
>
> -sw
--Bryan
John Kuthe
Aug 28, 2012, 11:18:46 PM8/28/12
to
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 19:34:06 -0700 (PDT), Bryan
<bryang...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
approach, Bryan? Besides me, I mean!
John Kuthe...
<bryang...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
>Go fuck yourself, Steve. I won't ignore your posts, and will agree with those I agree with publicly. You can dislike me *as a person*, while I continue to be indifferent to you, *as a person*.
>>
>> -sw
>
>--Bryan
Not surprising. How many friends do you lose/have you lost with that
>>
>> -sw
>
>--Bryan
approach, Bryan? Besides me, I mean!
John Kuthe...
Nunya Bidnits
Aug 29, 2012, 10:00:16 AM8/29/12
to
"ImStillMags" <sitar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5060f376-7403-439f...@t9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
謬he longest trial lasted three months
柊t LEAST 15% of Splenda is not excreted from your body in a timely
manner
Considering that Splenda bears more chemical similarity to DDT than it
does to sugar, are you willing to bet your health on this data?
Remember that fat soluble substances, such as DDT, can remain in your
fat for decades and devastate your health.
If the above facts don't concern because you believe the FDA would not
ever allow a toxic substance into the market then read on.
Do You Really Believe These People Are Going to Protect You?
Please consider that the only organizations between you and
potentially toxic side effects are the FDA and the manufacturers of
sucralose (Tate & Lyle) and of Splenda (McNeil Nutritionals).
The FDA has a long standing history of ineffective screening and
rampant conflict of interests as demonstrated in their inability to
identify Vioxx as too dangerous to be on the market. This mistake cost
55,000 people their lives.
Now the point I want you to understand here, because it is really
important, is that Splenda is not a drug and is only a food additive.
As such the number of studies required to receive FDA approval is
substantially less than drug. Vioxx had an order of magnitude of more
comprehensive clinical trials than Splenda ever did, and despite this
rigorous approval process it still killed 55,000 people.
So, now you have the primary concerns I have about Splenda and the
choices is yours.
The notion that because some of the sucralose is metabolized, that it is
Considering that Splenda bears more chemical similarity to DDT than it
does to sugar, are you willing to bet your health on this data?
Remember that fat soluble substances, such as DDT, can remain in your
fat for decades and devastate your health.
If the above facts don't concern because you believe the FDA would not
ever allow a toxic substance into the market then read on.
Do You Really Believe These People Are Going to Protect You?
Please consider that the only organizations between you and
potentially toxic side effects are the FDA and the manufacturers of
sucralose (Tate & Lyle) and of Splenda (McNeil Nutritionals).
The FDA has a long standing history of ineffective screening and
rampant conflict of interests as demonstrated in their inability to
identify Vioxx as too dangerous to be on the market. This mistake cost
55,000 people their lives.
Now the point I want you to understand here, because it is really
important, is that Splenda is not a drug and is only a food additive.
As such the number of studies required to receive FDA approval is
substantially less than drug. Vioxx had an order of magnitude of more
comprehensive clinical trials than Splenda ever did, and despite this
rigorous approval process it still killed 55,000 people.
So, now you have the primary concerns I have about Splenda and the
choices is yours.
therefore harmful, is not correct. And certainly it is not true that on
average, 15 percent of sucralose just stays in the body forever. Frequent
users would turn into bags of sucralose. It would have long ago become
obvious to physicians that there were large deposits of the stuff in heavy
users. So it is being metabolized. And as such, unless there are toxic
metabolites created in the process, then the metabolites of sucralose
digestion would be passed harmlessly.
The DDT comparison is false logic. The simple fact of a chemical similarity
proves nothing. Table salt (sodium chloride) is 35 percent chlorine. Should
we run for our lives?
The amounts of DDT ingested through physical exposure, in comparison to the
amount of sucralose ingested by a normal daily user, are miniscule in the
extreme. Over the long term, such a large amount of retained sucralose or
sucralose metabolites would have to become obvious in some heavy sucralose
users and lead to investigation due to the presentation of actual clinical
symptoms or physical anomalies created by a large buildup of this alleged
foreign material in the body These are far more convincing indicators of
problems than theory or speculation. AFAIK no such clinical evidence has
ever been presented.
MartyB
Nunya Bidnits
Aug 29, 2012, 11:34:14 AM8/29/12
to
Please ignore the incorrectly quoted post. Will repost, and attempt to
cancel the bad one.
MartyB
cancel the bad one.
MartyB
Nunya Bidnits
Aug 29, 2012, 11:34:49 AM8/29/12
to
> 謬he longest trial lasted three months
> 柊t LEAST 15% of Splenda is not excreted from your body in a timely
> manner
> Considering that Splenda bears more chemical similarity to DDT than it
> does to sugar, are you willing to bet your health on this data?
> Remember that fat soluble substances, such as DDT, can remain in your
> fat for decades and devastate your health.
>
> If the above facts don't concern because you believe the FDA would not
> ever allow a toxic substance into the market then read on.
>
> Do You Really Believe These People Are Going to Protect You?
> Please consider that the only organizations between you and
> potentially toxic side effects are the FDA and the manufacturers of
> sucralose (Tate & Lyle) and of Splenda (McNeil Nutritionals).
>
> The FDA has a long standing history of ineffective screening and
> rampant conflict of interests as demonstrated in their inability to
> identify Vioxx as too dangerous to be on the market. This mistake cost
> 55,000 people their lives.
>
> Now the point I want you to understand here, because it is really
> important, is that Splenda is not a drug and is only a food additive.
> As such the number of studies required to receive FDA approval is
> substantially less than drug. Vioxx had an order of magnitude of more
> comprehensive clinical trials than Splenda ever did, and despite this
> rigorous approval process it still killed 55,000 people.
>
> So, now you have the primary concerns I have about Splenda and the
> choices is yours.
> Considering that Splenda bears more chemical similarity to DDT than it
> does to sugar, are you willing to bet your health on this data?
> Remember that fat soluble substances, such as DDT, can remain in your
> fat for decades and devastate your health.
>
> If the above facts don't concern because you believe the FDA would not
> ever allow a toxic substance into the market then read on.
>
> Do You Really Believe These People Are Going to Protect You?
> Please consider that the only organizations between you and
> potentially toxic side effects are the FDA and the manufacturers of
> sucralose (Tate & Lyle) and of Splenda (McNeil Nutritionals).
>
> The FDA has a long standing history of ineffective screening and
> rampant conflict of interests as demonstrated in their inability to
> identify Vioxx as too dangerous to be on the market. This mistake cost
> 55,000 people their lives.
>
> Now the point I want you to understand here, because it is really
> important, is that Splenda is not a drug and is only a food additive.
> As such the number of studies required to receive FDA approval is
> substantially less than drug. Vioxx had an order of magnitude of more
> comprehensive clinical trials than Splenda ever did, and despite this
> rigorous approval process it still killed 55,000 people.
>
> So, now you have the primary concerns I have about Splenda and the
> choices is yours.
Message has been deleted
Bryan
Aug 30, 2012, 8:00:26 AM8/30/12
to
On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 12:24:38 PM UTC-5, Sqwertz wrote:
> What does fucking myself, you ignoring my posts, agreeing with others,
>
> and whether I like you or not have anything to do with the fact that
>
> YOUR POSTS ARE STRUCTURALLY FUCKED UP and do not adhere to normal
>
> Usenet etiquette?
>
>
>
> Even you can't disagree with that. It's a fact.
>
I didn't question the structurally fucked up aspect, but your response. But anyway, Usenet etiquette is pretty anachronistic these days, leftover from the days of dial-up modems. You remember those days, back when John had a job working with computers. A good line of work for him, since computers are not concerned with the personalities of those who interact with them.
Oooops! Did I break another Usenet rule again?
>
> -sw
--Bryan
>
> and whether I like you or not have anything to do with the fact that
>
> YOUR POSTS ARE STRUCTURALLY FUCKED UP and do not adhere to normal
>
> Usenet etiquette?
>
>
>
> Even you can't disagree with that. It's a fact.
>
I didn't question the structurally fucked up aspect, but your response. But anyway, Usenet etiquette is pretty anachronistic these days, leftover from the days of dial-up modems. You remember those days, back when John had a job working with computers. A good line of work for him, since computers are not concerned with the personalities of those who interact with them.
Oooops! Did I break another Usenet rule again?
>
> -sw
--Bryan
Bryan
Aug 30, 2012, 8:39:21 AM8/30/12
to
And George, "houseboy" is a very different job than cook. The main thing I'm thinking that the two jobs have in common is that I wouldn't hire Mr. Kuthe for either one. But then, I wouldn't even employ him as a "necessary woman," even though I must admit that he is well qualified.
http://rmhh.co.uk/occup/n-o.html
I bet I violated some kind of Usenet norm with this post.
--Bryan
George M. Middius
Aug 30, 2012, 10:21:53 AM8/30/12
to
Bryan wrote:
> > Can you beat that? sqwishy scolds Bryan, and after Bryan claimed
> > sqwishy is next on the list to be his houseboy. Wondrous stuff.
>
> > Can you beat that? sqwishy scolds Bryan, and after Bryan claimed
> > sqwishy is next on the list to be his houseboy. Wondrous stuff.
>
> And George, "houseboy" is a very different job than cook. The main thing I'm thinking that the two jobs have in common is that I wouldn't hire Mr. Kuthe for either one. But then, I wouldn't even employ him as a "necessary woman," even though I must admit that he is well qualified.
What's wrong with your post? I'll give you one guess.
John Kuthe
Aug 30, 2012, 3:18:05 PM8/30/12
to
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 05:00:26 -0700 (PDT), Bryan
<bryang...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
And FYI, I'm working as a nurse again. so take your "loser" comments
and rub your prostate with them! You LOSER as a human with 0 degrees!!
Johnny's right, and I have an answer for his question "Why does
someone as smart as you not have a college education/degree(s)?"
BECAUSE YOU CAN'T DO IT!
John Kuthe...
<bryang...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
>I didn't question the structurally fucked up aspect, but your response. But anyway, Usenet etiquette is pretty anachronistic these days, leftover from the days of dial-up modems. You remember those days, back when John had a job working with computers. A good line of work for him, since computers are not concerned with the personalities of those who interact with them.
>
>Oooops! Did I break another Usenet rule again?
>>
>> -sw
>
>--Bryan
What do you care abourt rules, dipshit?
>
>Oooops! Did I break another Usenet rule again?
>>
>> -sw
>
>--Bryan
And FYI, I'm working as a nurse again. so take your "loser" comments
and rub your prostate with them! You LOSER as a human with 0 degrees!!
Johnny's right, and I have an answer for his question "Why does
someone as smart as you not have a college education/degree(s)?"
BECAUSE YOU CAN'T DO IT!
John Kuthe...
Gary
Aug 30, 2012, 5:29:48 PM8/30/12
to
Bryan wrote:
>
> What I said about Steve was very narrow. Essentially, I said that if
> I *had* to hire anyone on the NG as a paid cook, subject to a typical
> employer/employee relationship, that Steve's cooking style would place
> him ahead of anyone else here as a candidate. I don't expect him to
> like me for saying that, and didn't say it to court his favor.
> It was just an observation, and I'm sure you've noticed that I don't
> filter my thoughts much on Usenet.
Same here with me, Bryan. As you've read, I'm hoping he will open a
>
> What I said about Steve was very narrow. Essentially, I said that if
> I *had* to hire anyone on the NG as a paid cook, subject to a typical
> employer/employee relationship, that Steve's cooking style would place
> him ahead of anyone else here as a candidate. I don't expect him to
> like me for saying that, and didn't say it to court his favor.
> It was just an observation, and I'm sure you've noticed that I don't
> filter my thoughts much on Usenet.
restaurant some day. :-D
Gary
George M. Middius
Aug 30, 2012, 5:34:19 PM8/30/12
to
Gary wrote:
> Same here with me, Bryan. As you've read, I'm hoping he will open a
> restaurant some day. :-D
Unlikely. Usually the owner wants to meddle in running the place
> Same here with me, Bryan. As you've read, I'm hoping he will open a
> restaurant some day. :-D
instead of doing what he's good at. In sqwishy's case, that would be
bussing tables and catching rodents.
Gary
Aug 30, 2012, 5:41:23 PM8/30/12
to
John Kuthe wrote:
>
> And FYI, I'm working as a nurse again.
Good to hear you are employed again John! :-D
>
> And FYI, I'm working as a nurse again.
G.
John Kuthe
Aug 30, 2012, 5:44:21 PM8/30/12
to
lived! While I aklways said I've never had anything gbross he's
cooked, I was being very one sided and generous! I've also never had
anything exceptionally good that he cooked, with the probable
exception of that one hickory smoked chicken and some morels once.
But anyone can over-smoke chicken and morels are hard to mess up, I'd
hope!
John Kuthe...
John Kuthe
Aug 30, 2012, 5:44:42 PM8/30/12
to
John Kuthe
Aug 30, 2012, 5:45:07 PM8/30/12
to
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 16:44:42 -0500, John Kuthe <John...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Thanks Gary! :-)
John Kuthe...
wrote:
John Kuthe...
Message has been deleted
Gary
Aug 30, 2012, 7:31:58 PM8/30/12
to
Gary
Bryan
Aug 30, 2012, 8:21:48 PM8/30/12
to
My new book arrived today (a 6-week interlibrary loan). I bet you can guess the subject matter.
http://www.amazon.com/Chemical-Biological-Functional-Properties-Components/dp/1439802378
>
> John Kuthe...
--Bryan
John Kuthe
Aug 30, 2012, 9:00:48 PM8/30/12
to
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 17:21:48 -0700 (PDT), Bryan
...
John Kuthe...
...
>
>My new book arrived today (a 6-week interlibrary loan). I bet you can guess the subject matter.
>http://www.amazon.com/Chemical-Biological-Functional-Properties-Components/dp/1439802378
>>
>> John Kuthe...
>
>--Bryan
Your obsession?
>My new book arrived today (a 6-week interlibrary loan). I bet you can guess the subject matter.
>http://www.amazon.com/Chemical-Biological-Functional-Properties-Components/dp/1439802378
>>
>> John Kuthe...
>
>--Bryan
John Kuthe...
z z
Aug 30, 2012, 9:38:11 PM8/30/12
to
If I put out a bowl of milk my cat wont touch it. If I am eating a bowl
of Frosted Flakes with the same milk in it, she is begging for a taste.
When she was a kitten she liked to nibble on bits of honeydew melon. She
will not touch Cool Whip-she is a smart kitty.
I had an event when I was taking Vioxx and stopped taking it before they
recalled it. Scary stuff.
I don't have any problem with Splenda and good lord I am exposed to
chlorine in my drinking water.
I always considered Nutrasweet a poison after being poisoned by heated
Nutrasweet, and that stuff is still in soda pop. I drink 60-80oz of Diet
Coke daily for 30+ years now.
Dad has been using packets of Sweet and Low for 30 yrs now-wasn't that
the lab rats brain cancer stuff?
What doesn't kill you makes you better? :-)
of Frosted Flakes with the same milk in it, she is begging for a taste.
When she was a kitten she liked to nibble on bits of honeydew melon. She
will not touch Cool Whip-she is a smart kitty.
I had an event when I was taking Vioxx and stopped taking it before they
recalled it. Scary stuff.
I don't have any problem with Splenda and good lord I am exposed to
chlorine in my drinking water.
I always considered Nutrasweet a poison after being poisoned by heated
Nutrasweet, and that stuff is still in soda pop. I drink 60-80oz of Diet
Coke daily for 30+ years now.
Dad has been using packets of Sweet and Low for 30 yrs now-wasn't that
the lab rats brain cancer stuff?
What doesn't kill you makes you better? :-)
T
Aug 31, 2012, 8:17:51 PM8/31/12
to
In article <k1it02$1t2$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, w...@menull.com says...
> receptors for sweet stuff because they're carnivores. Doesn't stop
> humans from adding sweeteners to stuff for cats, or feeding them sweet
> foods. Doesn't mean the cat notices the sweet stuff.
>
> ...So far, cats are alone among mammals in lacking the sweet gene;
> even close relatives among the meat-eaters like hyenas and mongooses
> have it. And cats may lack other components of the ability to enjoy
> (and digest) sugars, such as glucokinase in their livers?a key enzyme
> that controls the metabolism of carbohydrates and prevents glucose
> from flooding the animal. Despite this, most major pet food
> manufacturers use corn or other grains in their meals. "This may be
> why cats are getting diabetes," Brand offers. "Cat food today has
> around 20 percent carbohydrates. The cats are not used to that, they
> can't handle it."
Oh really? All the cats I've had could understand sweet stuff. One male
cat of mine used to get his head wedged into an empty ice cream
container tyring to get the residual sweet stuff out.
>
> On 8/28/2012 11:47 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
> > On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 18:42:08 -0700 (PDT), Bryan wrote:
> >
> >> My crazy cat goes ape over a spoon dipped into sucralose. I didn't
> >> give her much, since it hasn't been studied in cats. Obviously, I
> >> don't want to hurt her. I just let her taste it because she heard
> >> the crunch of the packet, and associated the sound with cat treats,
> >> but she licked the spoon, and begged for more. Weird.
> >
> On 8/28/2012 11:47 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
> > On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 18:42:08 -0700 (PDT), Bryan wrote:
> >
> >> My crazy cat goes ape over a spoon dipped into sucralose. I didn't
> >> give her much, since it hasn't been studied in cats. Obviously, I
> >> don't want to hurt her. I just let her taste it because she heard
> >> the crunch of the packet, and associated the sound with cat treats,
> >> but she licked the spoon, and begged for more. Weird.
> >
> > I fixed your paragraph for you. Last time I'll do that - I'll just
> > ignore your posts from now on.
> >
> > ignore your posts from now on.
> >
> > Cats like several sweeteners. Petromalt contains corn syrup, malt
> > extract syrup, and glycerin - all sweeteners. And most cats will eat
> > that stuff up.
>
> Cats can't taste sweet. They're carnivores. They lack the taste
> > extract syrup, and glycerin - all sweeteners. And most cats will eat
> > that stuff up.
>
> receptors for sweet stuff because they're carnivores. Doesn't stop
> humans from adding sweeteners to stuff for cats, or feeding them sweet
> foods. Doesn't mean the cat notices the sweet stuff.
>
> ...So far, cats are alone among mammals in lacking the sweet gene;
> even close relatives among the meat-eaters like hyenas and mongooses
> have it. And cats may lack other components of the ability to enjoy
> (and digest) sugars, such as glucokinase in their livers?a key enzyme
> that controls the metabolism of carbohydrates and prevents glucose
> from flooding the animal. Despite this, most major pet food
> manufacturers use corn or other grains in their meals. "This may be
> why cats are getting diabetes," Brand offers. "Cat food today has
> around 20 percent carbohydrates. The cats are not used to that, they
> can't handle it."
Oh really? All the cats I've had could understand sweet stuff. One male
cat of mine used to get his head wedged into an empty ice cream
container tyring to get the residual sweet stuff out.
Brooklyn1
Aug 31, 2012, 8:50:03 PM8/31/12
to
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 20:17:51 -0400, T <kd1s....@cox.nospam.net>
wrote:
Wrong. It's the fat that cats are after.
wrote:
Cheryl
Sep 1, 2012, 12:52:37 AM9/1/12
to
On 8/28/2012 2:18 PM, Nunya Bidnits wrote:
> "Sqwertz" <swe...@cluemail.compost> wrote in message
> news:yuwd0g29...@sqwertz.com...
>
> I can't get that stuff into my cats in any form. They will detect it hidden
> in food and walk away. If you do as the vet says and more or less force feed
> it, they try to shake their heads and spit it out. It's really a nice
> addition to carpeting.
I have a weird cat who loves the goopy stuff. One of my other cats has
to have meds now and then for an upset tummy (zantac or pepcid) and if
she sees another cat having to have medicine she'll meow and rub around
my legs as if asking for hers and won't give up until she gets
something. So I started giving her the petromalt for her "medicine" and
she eats it right up. Everyone's happy. :) She's also the kitty
cleaner of the bunch and is always licking everyone so she ingests more
fur than just her own.
>
> If the issue is constipation or hairballs, Metamucil (or a copy) works well,
> mixed into canned food with a tiny bit of extra water. In the case of
> constipation, which is caused by many dry foods, cats can take a stool
> softener (as recommended by my vet) as a last resort. But the Metamucil
> makes that unnecessary and is better for my older cats.
>
> Cats naturally consume vegetation of various kinds for digestion and clearly
> some fiber aids their digestion. This is especially true for older indoor
> cats. I think the negative hype about grains, which supply fiber, is just a
> load of crap intended to get people to buy seriously overpriced "natural"
> food.
> "Sqwertz" <swe...@cluemail.compost> wrote in message
> news:yuwd0g29...@sqwertz.com...
>> On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 18:42:08 -0700 (PDT), Bryan wrote:
>>
>>> My crazy cat goes ape over a spoon dipped into sucralose. I didn't
>>> give her much, since it hasn't been studied in cats. Obviously, I
>>> don't want to hurt her. I just let her taste it because she heard
>>> the crunch of the packet, and associated the sound with cat treats,
>>> but she licked the spoon, and begged for more. Weird.
>>
>> I fixed your paragraph for you. Last time I'll do that - I'll just
>> ignore your posts from now on.
>>
>> Cats like several sweeteners. Petromalt contains corn syrup, malt
>> extract syrup, and glycerin - all sweeteners. And most cats will eat
>> that stuff up.
>>
>> -sw
>>
>>> My crazy cat goes ape over a spoon dipped into sucralose. I didn't
>>> give her much, since it hasn't been studied in cats. Obviously, I
>>> don't want to hurt her. I just let her taste it because she heard
>>> the crunch of the packet, and associated the sound with cat treats,
>>> but she licked the spoon, and begged for more. Weird.
>>
>> I fixed your paragraph for you. Last time I'll do that - I'll just
>> ignore your posts from now on.
>>
>> Cats like several sweeteners. Petromalt contains corn syrup, malt
>> extract syrup, and glycerin - all sweeteners. And most cats will eat
>> that stuff up.
>>
>
> I can't get that stuff into my cats in any form. They will detect it hidden
> in food and walk away. If you do as the vet says and more or less force feed
> it, they try to shake their heads and spit it out. It's really a nice
> addition to carpeting.
I have a weird cat who loves the goopy stuff. One of my other cats has
to have meds now and then for an upset tummy (zantac or pepcid) and if
she sees another cat having to have medicine she'll meow and rub around
my legs as if asking for hers and won't give up until she gets
something. So I started giving her the petromalt for her "medicine" and
she eats it right up. Everyone's happy. :) She's also the kitty
cleaner of the bunch and is always licking everyone so she ingests more
fur than just her own.
>
> If the issue is constipation or hairballs, Metamucil (or a copy) works well,
> mixed into canned food with a tiny bit of extra water. In the case of
> constipation, which is caused by many dry foods, cats can take a stool
> softener (as recommended by my vet) as a last resort. But the Metamucil
> makes that unnecessary and is better for my older cats.
>
> Cats naturally consume vegetation of various kinds for digestion and clearly
> some fiber aids their digestion. This is especially true for older indoor
> cats. I think the negative hype about grains, which supply fiber, is just a
> load of crap intended to get people to buy seriously overpriced "natural"
> food.
Brooklyn1
Sep 1, 2012, 12:28:09 PM9/1/12
to
Nunya Bidnits wrote:
>
> Cats naturally consume vegetation of various kinds for digestion and clearly
> some fiber aids their digestion. This is especially true for older indoor
> cats. I think the negative hype about grains, which supply fiber, is just a
> load of crap intended to get people to buy seriously overpriced "natural"
> food.
Cats normally consume vegetation in the form of grasses/greens, not
>
> Cats naturally consume vegetation of various kinds for digestion and clearly
> some fiber aids their digestion. This is especially true for older indoor
> cats. I think the negative hype about grains, which supply fiber, is just a
> load of crap intended to get people to buy seriously overpriced "natural"
> food.
grains. The gourmet varieties from the major pet food companies are
not over priced (less than 50｢/can) and contain leafy greens (spinach)
but no grains. What do you mean by "seriously overpriced"... if you
can't afford $1 a day to feed a cat then you shouldn't have a cat.
Nunya Bidnits
Sep 1, 2012, 3:40:47 PM9/1/12
to
"Brooklyn1" <Gravesend1> wrote in message
news:vac448lgrj87mnhm8...@4ax.com...
And are you a sucker for the "Indoor" canned foods where they cram some
grass in there for an extra 30% added to the price, just so the cats will
puke it up?
Have you seen Eukanuba or Royal Canin food? Have you noticed how Hill's
always finds a way to come up with something supposedly better than the very
best food on earth they made six months ago, and charge even more for it?
That's what I mean by seriously overpriced. They want a hell of a lot more
money for something that isn't necessarily any better, sometimes worse.
Pets and people are the same, in that they are all different individuals
with different needs. My older indoor cats have specific health issues.
Chronically constipated cats can develop a life threatening problem called
megacolon. Two of my cats get chronically constipated on a diet of strictly
"super premium" cat foods. For them, my vet prescribed a stool softener
(for acute constipation) and a fiber supplement of Metamucil with their
canned food, Friskies Senior and Special Diet varieties. One cat had urinary
tract issues which went away after treatment and switching to Special Diet.
I give them a weight control dry food like Purina Cat Chow Weight Control.
Dry food with 6% or more fiber controls their digestive problems. I have one
cat with an enlarged heart who has to take Lasix and visits the vet monthly
for that and another problem. It's especially important to control
constipation for him since the Lasix has a side effect of making it worse.
It's not as if I cut corners on their health or diet, I just don't waste
money on crap that doesn't do them any good. The bottom line is not cost.
It's what best maintains their health and weight as endorsed by my
veterinarian and gives them some reasonable variety. This mix of wet and dry
food meets the goals, and no prescription diet is necessary because all the
issues are well managed.
So yeah, I'm a big old cheap slacker when it comes to my cats, unlike
Shelly, who generously lets his cats eat all the rodents they can find in
his house and occasionally lets them drink toilet water. ;-)
MartyB
MartyB
Bryan
Sep 1, 2012, 4:20:26 PM9/1/12
to
On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 1:37:16 PM UTC-5, ImStillMags wrote:
>
>
> If you feel that Splenda affects you adversely, it is valid. Don"t let
>
> someone convince you that it is all in your head. You know your body
>
> better than anyone else.
>
How nice of you to validate people's feelings. The truth is this: sucralose is 600 X as sweet as sugar. One only consumes it in tiny quantities. Better to worry about things that have been shown by science to be unhealthful, like being obese.
>
>
> If you feel that Splenda affects you adversely, it is valid. Don"t let
>
> someone convince you that it is all in your head. You know your body
>
> better than anyone else.
>
--Bryan
Bryan
Sep 1, 2012, 4:34:42 PM9/1/12
to
http://www.catinfo.org/?link=cannedfoods
http://binkyspage.tripod.com/CanFoodNew.html
A can and a half a day of 9 Lives costs about 70 cents a day.
--Bryan
Bryan
Sep 1, 2012, 4:37:22 PM9/1/12
to
On Thursday, August 30, 2012 4:44:21 PM UTC-5, John Kuthe wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 17:29:48 -0400, Gary <g.ma...@att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Bryan wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> What I said about Steve was very narrow. Essentially, I said that if
>
> >> I *had* to hire anyone on the NG as a paid cook, subject to a typical
>
> >> employer/employee relationship, that Steve's cooking style would place
>
> >> him ahead of anyone else here as a candidate. I don't expect him to
>
> >> like me for saying that, and didn't say it to court his favor.
>
> >> It was just an observation, and I'm sure you've noticed that I don't
>
> >> filter my thoughts much on Usenet.
>
> >
>
> >Same here with me, Bryan. As you've read, I'm hoping he will open a
>
> >restaurant some day. :-D
>
> >
>
> >Gary
>
>
>
> If Bryan ever opens a restaurant, it will be very bland and VERY short
>
> lived!
Says the guy who eats the same thing for breakfast nearly every day.
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 17:29:48 -0400, Gary <g.ma...@att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Bryan wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> What I said about Steve was very narrow. Essentially, I said that if
>
> >> I *had* to hire anyone on the NG as a paid cook, subject to a typical
>
> >> employer/employee relationship, that Steve's cooking style would place
>
> >> him ahead of anyone else here as a candidate. I don't expect him to
>
> >> like me for saying that, and didn't say it to court his favor.
>
> >> It was just an observation, and I'm sure you've noticed that I don't
>
> >> filter my thoughts much on Usenet.
>
> >
>
> >Same here with me, Bryan. As you've read, I'm hoping he will open a
>
> >restaurant some day. :-D
>
> >
>
> >Gary
>
>
>
> If Bryan ever opens a restaurant, it will be very bland and VERY short
>
> lived!
>
> John Kuthe...
--Bryan
Bryan
Sep 1, 2012, 4:43:09 PM9/1/12
to
On Thursday, August 30, 2012 8:40:03 PM UTC-5, z z wrote:
> If I put out a bowl of milk my cat wont touch it. If I am eating a bowl
>
> of Frosted Flakes with the same milk in it, she is begging for a taste.
>
> When she was a kitten she liked to nibble on bits of honeydew melon. She
>
> will not touch Cool Whip-she is a smart kitty.
>
>
>
> I had an event when I was taking Vioxx and stopped taking it before they
>
> recalled it. Scary stuff.
>
>
>
> I don't have any problem with Splenda and good lord I am exposed to
>
> chlorine in my drinking water.
>
>
>
> I always considered Nutrasweet a poison after being poisoned by heated
>
> Nutrasweet, and that stuff is still in soda pop. I drink 60-80oz of Diet
>
> Coke daily for 30+ years now.
>
Nutrasweet breaks down into its component amino acids when heated, those being aspartic acid and phenylalanine. Neither are poisonous, and phenylalanine is a necessary nutrient. You were NOT, "poisoned by heated Nutrasweet."
> If I put out a bowl of milk my cat wont touch it. If I am eating a bowl
>
> of Frosted Flakes with the same milk in it, she is begging for a taste.
>
> When she was a kitten she liked to nibble on bits of honeydew melon. She
>
> will not touch Cool Whip-she is a smart kitty.
>
>
>
> I had an event when I was taking Vioxx and stopped taking it before they
>
> recalled it. Scary stuff.
>
>
>
> I don't have any problem with Splenda and good lord I am exposed to
>
> chlorine in my drinking water.
>
>
>
> I always considered Nutrasweet a poison after being poisoned by heated
>
> Nutrasweet, and that stuff is still in soda pop. I drink 60-80oz of Diet
>
> Coke daily for 30+ years now.
>
>
--Bryan
z z
Sep 1, 2012, 5:18:04 PM9/1/12
to
If you say so..here is your assignment-take one 16oz glass bottle of
Diet Coke (oh thats right they don't sell it that way anymore and it
doesnt taste the same anymore) heat it to 100degrees, open it, pour it
over ice, and drink all 16oz in the next 3 minutes. Then we will time
how long before you develope a fierce headache, your very bones feel
invaded, and you heave and then dry heave for hours. 10hrs later you are
fine again. You ate nothing else that it could be blamed on. It's not a
coincidence that cola companies now include an expiration date. That
stuff breaks down into poison.
If you want a simpler test, bake a pumpkin pie and sweeten it with
nutrasweet. Cool, and serve.
Diet Coke (oh thats right they don't sell it that way anymore and it
doesnt taste the same anymore) heat it to 100degrees, open it, pour it
over ice, and drink all 16oz in the next 3 minutes. Then we will time
how long before you develope a fierce headache, your very bones feel
invaded, and you heave and then dry heave for hours. 10hrs later you are
fine again. You ate nothing else that it could be blamed on. It's not a
coincidence that cola companies now include an expiration date. That
stuff breaks down into poison.
If you want a simpler test, bake a pumpkin pie and sweeten it with
nutrasweet. Cool, and serve.
z z
Sep 1, 2012, 5:29:14 PM9/1/12
to
Aspartic acid is made synthetically using ammonium fumarate and
aspartase from E.coli, E.coli usually breaks down the aspartic acid as a
nitrogen source but using excess amounts of ammonium fumarate a reversal
of the enzyme's job is possible, and so aspartic acid is made to very
high yields,
Interesting stuff.
aspartase from E.coli, E.coli usually breaks down the aspartic acid as a
nitrogen source but using excess amounts of ammonium fumarate a reversal
of the enzyme's job is possible, and so aspartic acid is made to very
high yields,
Interesting stuff.
Bryan
Sep 1, 2012, 6:10:30 PM9/1/12
to
On Saturday, September 1, 2012 4:20:04 PM UTC-5, z z wrote:
> If you say so..here is your assignment-take one 16oz glass bottle of
>
> Diet Coke (oh thats right they don't sell it that way anymore and it
>
> doesnt taste the same anymore) heat it to 100degrees, open it, pour it
>
> over ice, and drink all 16oz in the next 3 minutes. Then we will time
>
> how long before you develope a fierce headache, your very bones feel
>
> invaded, and you heave and then dry heave for hours. 10hrs later you are
>
> fine again. You ate nothing else that it could be blamed on. It's not a
>
> coincidence that cola companies now include an expiration date. That
>
> stuff breaks down into poison.
>
It breaks down into two amino acids, and is no longer sweet tasting. That's the reason for the expiration date.
> If you say so..here is your assignment-take one 16oz glass bottle of
>
> Diet Coke (oh thats right they don't sell it that way anymore and it
>
> doesnt taste the same anymore) heat it to 100degrees, open it, pour it
>
> over ice, and drink all 16oz in the next 3 minutes. Then we will time
>
> how long before you develope a fierce headache, your very bones feel
>
> invaded, and you heave and then dry heave for hours. 10hrs later you are
>
> fine again. You ate nothing else that it could be blamed on. It's not a
>
> coincidence that cola companies now include an expiration date. That
>
> stuff breaks down into poison.
>
>
> If you want a simpler test, bake a pumpkin pie and sweeten it with
>
> nutrasweet. Cool, and serve.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy
> If you want a simpler test, bake a pumpkin pie and sweeten it with
>
> nutrasweet. Cool, and serve.
All those conspiracy theories are so much bullshit, well, except the one about the aliens from Area 51 killing JFK. That one is true.
--Bryan
Nunya Bidnits
Sep 2, 2012, 11:17:20 AM9/2/12
to
"z z" <angi...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:5209-504...@storefull-3253.bay.webtv.net...
0 new messages