I'm agreeing with it in the sense that she is correct in stating that glycerin is absolutely not a sugar. That being said, in 15 minutes of research I found no concrete evidence for or against sugar alcohols being able to feed yeast infections.

Basic logic from a failed beer brewing attempts say that it shouldn't by nature feed the naturally present bacteria (Candida Albicans), but I'm not a chemist or biologist.

My one question is this: How do the companies that produce lubes know 100% without a doubt that there aren't reactions occuring after formulation that cause sugars to form? less

Very interesting experiment!

The logic of the sugar vs sugar alcohol makes sense, but I could say for sure how it affects the female anatomy.

And as for your question: "How do the companies that produce lubes know 100% without a doubt that there aren't reactions occuring after formulation that cause sugars to form? " I know that Doc Johnson employs its own designated chemist on staff. (I have no ideas about other companies though). less

I agree with what they're saying to an extent. It IS (partially) still a sugar. A sugar alcohol is a carbohydrate (sugar) with a structures similar to both sugars and alcohols.

Labeling laws truly favors the manufacturer and make the consumer unawares in many cases. You still have to be careful. It's like "sugar free" gum that has sugar alcohols. It is not processed completely like pure sugar, but it still partially digests it as a sugar. It still impacts blood sugar levels, but to a lesser extent.

So... is glycerin as bad as pure sugars? No, but it still is partially a sugar.

After some research, I found that some yeasts can indeed survive on glycerol. However, their success on using glycerol depends on other conditions as well. Also, yeast is not the only thing to worry about for a vagina. Other forms of bacteria can indeed process glycerol. less

I found the same title on the ID Lubes website, and it seemed suspiciously similar in wording to the article at the start of this thread, at least from an initial skim. I won't say one way or another that manufacturers produce unbiased research, but it seems inconclusive and anecdotal. I think it's good to question your choices of products and try different options. For example, products with "warming" ingredients don't produce any sensation for me but overwhelm my wife, so we don't really use those. It seems to be a personal issue and each woman's biochemistry is probably slightly different, even from week to week during the menstrual cycle. Find something that works and if you're having problems then it's probably time to switch it up. less

My first thought when I read this was that it sounded like something a manufacturer might try to disseminate, because it would be MUCH more convenient to publicize a little shady research than it would be to switch up their ingredients.

I find it highly unlikely that a manufacturer would produce truly unbiased research! In every case where there's a financial motive for research to reach a particular conclusion, it somehow always seems to reach that conclusion. Or it doesn't get published. Funny, huh? less

I'm not sure. Something in the logic here seems off to me, but I can't find it. It may be partly that I'm not 100% positive that the vaginal ecosystem doesn't cause it to break down in such a way that would cause problems. I also think of all the people that say their infections are exasperated by glycerin. More research is needed!

Edited to add:
I looked up in my I Love Female Orgasm book and it also said glycerin feeds yeast infections. Upon further research, I found this article that says:

"Many personal lubricants, like K-Y jelly, contain glycerin which breaks down to sugars and promotes yeast infections and possibly also bacterial vaginosis, noted Dr. Mary Marnach, a specialist in obstetrics and gynecology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota." (Emphasis mine) I'm assuming a doctor that specializes in it knows what he's talking about. OK, they don't always, but I'm willing to make that leap here.

And this is what bothered me about the original article. "During metabolization, which is what the body does to break down food in its digestive system, glycerin can be converted to glucose by the LIVER. HOWEVER, glycerin cannot be converted to glucose in the vagina because the last time I checked, my liver was not attached to my vagina in any way, shape, or form!" This does not show me that the vagina doesn't break it down and some conversion happens. To assume that the vaginal ecosystem doesn't break it down because it's not a liver is a bit of a leap in my mind.

At the moment, I'm not convinced. less

I agree with what they're saying to an extent. It IS (partially) still a sugar. A sugar alcohol is a carbohydrate (sugar) with a structures similar to both sugars and alcohols.

Labeling laws truly favors the manufacturer and make the consumer unawares in many cases. You still have to be careful. It's like "sugar free" gum that has sugar alcohols. It is not processed completely like pure sugar, but it still partially digests it as a sugar. It still impacts blood sugar levels, but to a lesser extent.

So... is glycerin as bad as pure sugars? No, but it still is partially a sugar.

After some research, I found that some yeasts can indeed survive on glycerol. However, their success on using glycerol depends on other conditions as well. Also, yeast is not the only thing to worry about for a vagina. Other forms of bacteria can indeed process glycerol. less

I'm not sure. Something in the logic here seems off to me, but I can't find it. It may be partly that I'm not 100% positive that the vaginal ecosystem doesn't cause it to break down in such a way that would cause problems. I also think of all the people that say their infections are exasperated by glycerin. More research is needed!

Edited to add:
I looked up in my I Love Female Orgasm book and it also said glycerin feeds yeast infections. Upon further research, I found this article that says:

"Many personal lubricants, like K-Y jelly, contain glycerin which breaks down to sugars and promotes yeast infections and possibly also bacterial vaginosis, noted Dr. Mary Marnach, a specialist in obstetrics and gynecology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota." (Emphasis mine) I'm assuming a doctor that specializes in it knows what he's talking about. OK, they don't always, but I'm willing to make that leap here.

And this is what bothered me about the original article. "During metabolization, which is what the body does to break down food in its digestive system, glycerin can be converted to glucose by the LIVER. HOWEVER, glycerin cannot be converted to glucose in the vagina because the last time I checked, my liver was not attached to my vagina in any way, shape, or form!" This does not show me that the vagina doesn't break it down and some conversion happens. To assume that the vaginal ecosystem doesn't break it down because it's not a liver is a bit of a leap in my mind.

At the moment, I'm not convinced. less