Tips for a flatter belly

On the Stote study you have quoted, Alan Aragon offers the following:

"As always, things are never as simple as they seem once the details are exposed. A number of serious design flaws, including common ones such as a small sample size (15 participants completed the trial) and short duration (2 week lead-in, 6 week treatment periods) plague the quality of the conclusions. The withdrawal of 5 subjects was a 28% dropout rate, which raises the huge question of how different the results might have been if the participants hung in there. The authors noted this was anomalously high compared to the typical dropout rate from feeding studies at their facility, which is roughly 6-7%. Statistical outcomes can easily swing either direction due to individual differences in a small sample. Now let’s take a look at how the key limitation of this trial cripples its validity."

"The most crucial short-sight of the investigation was its use of bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) for body composition assessment. In a previous study illustrating its inaccuracy for fasting protocols, Faintuch’s team used BIA to measure body composition changes in non-obese subjects undergoing a 42 day fast, consuming only water, vitamins, and electrolytes [31]. BIA registered an unrealistic 32% decrease in bodyfat, and an overall gain in lean mass. The researchers themselves concluded that these impossible readings proved BIA an inappropriate method for this type of protocol. It’s baffling that Stote chose BIA out of all the available methods, given BIA’s woeful track record in fasting research, likely attributable to the aggressive water redistribution found in fasting patients. Since we don't have reliable readings of the study's critical endpoints, its results are basically worthless."

[An Objective Look at Intermittent Fasting By Alan Aragon & Ryan Zielonka, Copyright © By Alan Aragon, August 8th, 2007]

>>Sweetener companies would not fund such research and Medical Universities would not fund it either since it's not related to any disease.

I disagree.

Obesity is a disease, there's a wealth of research on artificial sweeteners in obesity research.
www.obesityresearch.org/cgi/co...11/1325
www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1...732.html

Diabetes is a disease. Seems like a lot of diabetics are very interested in what artificial sugars and sugar alcohols might do to them.

Here is a good article which does the research on what may cause gas and bloating in sugar alcohols
http://66.102.1.104/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:OSA1G_sMpigJ:www.diabetes.ca/Files/SugarA...fect+bloating

it says, 10 to 20 grams per day of sugar alcohols may cause flatulence and bloating.

The Candian Diabetes Reserch foundation says that a can of diet coke contains 133 mg of sugar alcohol (as aspartame) - 0.13 grams - so you'd have to drink 76 cans to experience the flatulence and bloating that is documented at the minimum recorded value (unless you have IBS).

Ice cream with sorbitol, however, is a different deal - it contains 6 grams of sugar alcohol.

Addressing the initial issue, here is a very interesting article on glycaemic index and foods, it talks about how to properly support your metabolism by taking in appropriate glycaemic index foods before and after training.
www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/gl...index.htm