That study that was done in 1968 has been debunked many times. There is very little, if any concrete evidence to suggest that it does act as a contraceptive.
As a diabetic, I have researched Stevia exhaustively. It (in addition to erythritol) has never spiked my blood sugar. At least, not with the Puyre brand. There are others that used sugar derivatives as filler that are not good for diabetics. Stevia has been shown to actually decreasing insulin resistance is type 2 diabetics. It has never been shown to be carcinogenic, and it doesn't "fool" the body into thinking you have ingested sugar (like the majority of artificial sweeteners will).
A general statement that a 1968 study was 'debunked' but there is plenty of info on pubmed that processed stevia suppresses fertility in lab rats, and continues to do so for as much as 50-60 days after last ingested. You may like it for other reasons, but these are not fertility .. Have you had a baby while using stevia? That kind of thing might be evidence that it is not a depop tool.
Do the research and you will find that the reason the original was debunked was because the amount given to lab rats was very excessive. Anything given in very large, unrealistic doses can cause adverse effects. Saccharin was thought to be carcinogenic because it caused cancer in lab rats. It wasn't until they started doing realistic doses and studies that they changed that. Like I said, as a diabetic, I have researched ALL facets of stevia, not just the obvious sugar substitute.
That study that was done in 1968 has been debunked many times. There is very little, if any concrete evidence to suggest that it does act as a contraceptive.
As a diabetic, I have researched Stevia exhaustively. It (in addition to erythritol) has never spiked my blood sugar. At least, not with the Puyre brand. There are others that used sugar derivatives as filler that are not good for diabetics. Stevia has been shown to actually decreasing insulin resistance is type 2 diabetics. It has never been shown to be carcinogenic, and it doesn't "fool" the body into thinking you have ingested sugar (like the majority of artificial sweeteners will).
A general statement that a 1968 study was 'debunked' but there is plenty of info on pubmed that processed stevia suppresses fertility in lab rats, and continues to do so for as much as 50-60 days after last ingested. You may like it for other reasons, but these are not fertility .. Have you had a baby while using stevia? That kind of thing might be evidence that it is not a depop tool.
I have had no fertility issues (2 kids under 3 while using stevia)
OK, a good relevant comment. The research was on females tho, and it looks like your name may imply bio male?
Another anon was a female with the same results.
There is no such thing as a non-bio male.
Do the research and you will find that the reason the original was debunked was because the amount given to lab rats was very excessive. Anything given in very large, unrealistic doses can cause adverse effects. Saccharin was thought to be carcinogenic because it caused cancer in lab rats. It wasn't until they started doing realistic doses and studies that they changed that. Like I said, as a diabetic, I have researched ALL facets of stevia, not just the obvious sugar substitute.