Veg-diet & workout - am I missing out on something?

[inator]

In what amounts did sucralose do this, and why?

There are a few small scale studies indicating some antibiotic effect. The main one is a 2008 Duke University study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18800291) which found a very large reduction of beneficial bacteria (by around 50%) which occurred even at the lowest dose, which was lower than what the FDA allows.

However I went through the study in more detail and it has some significant weaknesses:
1. Obviously, it's a study on rodents and we aren't rodents;
2. Where are the control groups?? They do say that the probability of seeing a similar random reduction in bifidobacterial count occur naturally within 12 weeks would be 1/5000, but still... why no control groups?
3. It was partially sponsored by the Sugar Association.

Does it do so in vitro?

In this 2014 study, sucralose limited the growth of bacteroides bacteria in vitro: http://www.fasebj.org/content/28/1_Supp ... 18.1.short
Since one benefit of sucralose is that, as opposed to sugar, it inhibits the growth rate of oral bacteria, I suppose it's possible that it might have some antibiotic effect on the gut flora too.

And what replaced them? The most important part of many gut flora is what they prevent from colonizing.

True, part of beneficial effect of these particular strains is is keeping some harmful strains of enterobacteria in check (Salmonella etc.). But I'm guessing the subjects first have to be contaminated with a pathogen in order for it to colonize the gut (might be wrong, I'll do some more reading), which was not included in any of the above studies.

Even if sucralose had confirmed negative effects, it has to be weighed against sugar and other caloric sweeteners. Of course, Greger would only compare it to berries, since he isn't pragmatic in that regard.

He ends his latest video on Splenda with this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuMt7wFarrw

Now, of course, the negative consequences of this artificial sweetener should not be interpreted to suggest we should all go back to sugar and high fructose corn syrup. For optimal heath it is recommended that we all try to cut down on both.

Of course, there isn't enough evidence of a harmful effect yet, so even making a video on this topic is redundant at best and misleading at worst.

[brimstoneSalad]

Since one benefit of sucralose is that, as opposed to sugar, it inhibits the growth rate of oral bacteria, I suppose it's possible that it might have some antibiotic effect on the gut flora too.

Perhaps it's possible, but in order to be harmful it would also have to limit good bacteria while not affecting any of the bad.
I don't think the antibiotic effect is going to be strong enough to be meaningful at small amounts. Also, if it does have antibiotic effects of some kind, with regular consumption gut microbes should adapt to sucralose and become resistant (the good and the bad alike).

[Jebus]

I agree with Brimstone's recommendations except:

What's so great about wholemeal pasta?

Why advocate moderation if something is not good for you?

[brimstoneSalad]

Why advocate moderation if something is not good for you?

Different foods offer different nutrients, so mixing and matching is ideal. It's easy to get carried away on pasta and miss out on variety.

Arguably, there are better whole grain products than pasta, but it's pretty convenient.

Some people buy wheat, sprout it, grind it up, ferment it and turn it into bread. Ridiculous amount of effort, but pretty amazing.
Doing the same with multiple grains would be even better.