sweeterz12321
02-11-2005, 08:47 PM
i heard that sugar substitute is bad but then splenda is said to be made from sugar itself. does anyone know the risks or have any input on this?
Sponsor
Lenin
02-12-2005, 02:50 PM
Splenda is no more related to sugar than cyanide (CN) is to charcoal (C). A SlIGHT chemical change yieds an ENTIRELY new molecule, with entirely different properties.
The best way to evaluate artificial sweetners is whether or not the trillions of doses used over the past decades has created any obvious problems.
Seems only saccharine qualifies as a problem: cancer!
The best way to evaluate artificial sweetners is whether or not the trillions of doses used over the past decades has created any obvious problems.
Seems only saccharine qualifies as a problem: cancer!
KHPtotherescue
02-14-2005, 12:40 PM
I'm a diabetic-Type 1 and have to use sweetener in place of sugar. I've heard about the effects that aspartame can give people. My dietician suggested that I stop using it also. So I tried to switch over to the Splenda . I tried for almost two months to use the product. It made me sick to my stomach. I even vomitted some products that contained it. However, when I use aspartame nothing like that happens. So I'm stuck at a rock and a hard place. The theory is that aspartame is dangerous; but I've never gotten bad headaches from it; nor do I have any illnesses associated with it. I'm just going to have to use it because the Splenda and I don't get along. :)
jurry
02-14-2005, 05:26 PM
Simply, Splenda is not sugar. It is made from sucralose which is not sugar. it replaces some moleculs with Chlorine during the manufacturing process.
Lenin
02-15-2005, 09:27 AM
KHP,
Splenda tends to give me a headache, whereas I have no problems with aspartame, so aspartame is my choice.
I also think aspartame tastes a little better than Splenda, but sweetness is a very personal perception. I think anyone trying to make a decision should dissolve a packet of each in an ounce of water and have somebody admisnister a BLIND test. Perhaps even add some cyclamate if you are near enough to the Canadian border (it's sold everywhere there.)
Use the one that tastes best.
Splenda tends to give me a headache, whereas I have no problems with aspartame, so aspartame is my choice.
I also think aspartame tastes a little better than Splenda, but sweetness is a very personal perception. I think anyone trying to make a decision should dissolve a packet of each in an ounce of water and have somebody admisnister a BLIND test. Perhaps even add some cyclamate if you are near enough to the Canadian border (it's sold everywhere there.)
Use the one that tastes best.
jurry
02-15-2005, 10:21 AM
Splenda tends to give me cramps. I feel all bloated and get cramps after I have any of it. Then those feelings usually lead to diarrhea which isn't fun.
ASDGRMama
02-15-2005, 04:03 PM
Hello! I'm new on this forum; this subject caught my eye since I prefer not to use either. I am extremely sensitive to sugar (from any source) and sweetners tend to upset my stomach as well as give me headaches.
My alternative is stevia. It is available as powdered leaf, powdered extract (comes in packets and container) and liquid extract. The powdered extract is white and dissolves readily; the powdered leaf however is green and doesn't dissolve (I don't know many people who prefer it in this form but it's the least expensive). It is used as a sugar substitute 1 teaspoon of powder in place of 1 cup of sugar (it's VERY sweet).
It has not been shown to have a glycemic effect whatsoever. I can personally attest that it has caused me absolutely no problems since I started using it 2 years ago. I use it in everything from tea to biscuits to my yogurt breakfast shakes. It's definately something you have to experiment with since it does have a taste all it's own.
Just wanted to add my two cents. I'd always rather go with real food than chemical substitutes.
Love and Prayers, Kelly
My alternative is stevia. It is available as powdered leaf, powdered extract (comes in packets and container) and liquid extract. The powdered extract is white and dissolves readily; the powdered leaf however is green and doesn't dissolve (I don't know many people who prefer it in this form but it's the least expensive). It is used as a sugar substitute 1 teaspoon of powder in place of 1 cup of sugar (it's VERY sweet).
It has not been shown to have a glycemic effect whatsoever. I can personally attest that it has caused me absolutely no problems since I started using it 2 years ago. I use it in everything from tea to biscuits to my yogurt breakfast shakes. It's definately something you have to experiment with since it does have a taste all it's own.
Just wanted to add my two cents. I'd always rather go with real food than chemical substitutes.
Love and Prayers, Kelly
cdsjtsmom
02-21-2005, 10:58 PM
Kelly, So where do you get this stevia? I use Splenda.. well up to a few weeks ago when more reports came out about it.....
jurry
02-22-2005, 02:45 PM
The reports keep coming in too. More and more organizations are standing up against the makers of Splenda. It's interesting to read all the information about it.
digmusic
03-18-2005, 12:16 AM
aspartame is related to seizures - there are many research studies to back this up - if you have epilepsy or know someone who does beware of aspartame
jurry
03-21-2005, 03:04 PM
I shared this recently in another board, but I also found that Splenda is manufactured using phosgene, which is a poisonous gas.
veggie girl
03-21-2005, 04:20 PM
For a nice healthy and natural snack/dessert with no unhealthy sugars try this:
Put a 1/4 cup each of dates and raisins in processor and process to a puree add 1/4 cup sliced almonds, 1/2 cup walnuts, 1/4 cup unsweetened desicated coconut and tbsp or more of grated orange peel.
Process on a chop setting so you still have small pieces of nuts. If the mixture isn't bound, sprinkle and few drops of water and process.
Roll up into balls and enjoy!! Tasty and with only natural healthy sugars
If you want to, you could put them in the oven on low heat for 5 minutes and they taste like sticky buns!!
Put a 1/4 cup each of dates and raisins in processor and process to a puree add 1/4 cup sliced almonds, 1/2 cup walnuts, 1/4 cup unsweetened desicated coconut and tbsp or more of grated orange peel.
Process on a chop setting so you still have small pieces of nuts. If the mixture isn't bound, sprinkle and few drops of water and process.
Roll up into balls and enjoy!! Tasty and with only natural healthy sugars
If you want to, you could put them in the oven on low heat for 5 minutes and they taste like sticky buns!!
tdot
03-21-2005, 05:01 PM
All of the studies conducted with artificial sweeteners were conducted with rodents. Basically what would happen is they would give the rodent a huge quantity of a sweetener and it would develop cancer or DNA mutation. For a human the conversion for these studies is a lot more as we are larger. I have read that a human would have to drink 28 cans of diet pop a day for 6 months to have the same effects that the rodent studies would have.
If sweeteners don't bother you (i.e headache, vomiting etc), and you consume them in moderation, I wouldn't worry too much.
If sweeteners don't bother you (i.e headache, vomiting etc), and you consume them in moderation, I wouldn't worry too much.
runnergirl
03-21-2005, 10:38 PM
splenda is FINE! perfectly safe. a hydroxyl group (O=H) from a sugar molecule (sucrose) is inverted from cis- to trans- and then it does not get absorbed as sugar in this form. it could not be more natural and safe, despite what propaganda and special interest groups want the public to believe. i use it all the time.
Lenin
03-22-2005, 08:55 AM
Aspartame, Cyclamates, and Splenda are perfectly safe products FAR more healthy than the sugar they replace in our diets.
Those who choose the "urban legends" of the Internet are free to think that all three are deady poisons concocted by some GOLDFINGER or DOCTOR NO to destroy the population of Earth. Perhaps the G'O'ULD, or the REPLICATORS even had a part in the fiendish plot?
I prefer to believe the World Health Organization and the FDA's of every major country on the planet, who are unanimous in their agreement that the sugar substitutes are perfectly safe. (Well, except the U.S.A's head-in-the sand approach to cyclamate...that's politics.)
Probably several TRILLION doses of aspartame have been tried by humans. No drug in history has ever had this kind of intense testing except perhaps aspirin.
If it were as bad as some of these "made up reports" we'd be stepping over bodies every day on our way to work! Many would have a torn open blue packet in hand or a Diet Coke can laying next to a briefcase!
Those who choose the "urban legends" of the Internet are free to think that all three are deady poisons concocted by some GOLDFINGER or DOCTOR NO to destroy the population of Earth. Perhaps the G'O'ULD, or the REPLICATORS even had a part in the fiendish plot?
I prefer to believe the World Health Organization and the FDA's of every major country on the planet, who are unanimous in their agreement that the sugar substitutes are perfectly safe. (Well, except the U.S.A's head-in-the sand approach to cyclamate...that's politics.)
Probably several TRILLION doses of aspartame have been tried by humans. No drug in history has ever had this kind of intense testing except perhaps aspirin.
If it were as bad as some of these "made up reports" we'd be stepping over bodies every day on our way to work! Many would have a torn open blue packet in hand or a Diet Coke can laying next to a briefcase!
jurry
03-22-2005, 09:59 AM
as a registered dietitian, with both a bachelor's and master's in nutrition, i can tell you from years of scientific study that splenda is FINE! perfectly safe. a hydroxyl group (O=H) from a sugar molecule (sucrose) is inverted from cis- to trans- and then it does not get absorbed as sugar in this form. it could not be more natural and safe, despite what propaganda and special interest groups want the public to believe. i use it all the time.
The hydogen molecules are replaced by chlorine molecules, right? I'm correct in saying this, aren't I?
The hydogen molecules are replaced by chlorine molecules, right? I'm correct in saying this, aren't I?
jazzyE
03-22-2005, 10:52 AM
Another alternative to artificial sweeteners is Stevia. I just recently found out about it, but I'm loving it AND it's all natural.
Lenin
03-22-2005, 10:54 AM
Erik,
I think it's THREE chlorine atoms replace THREE hydroxyl groups but don't hold my feet to the fire on this.
I think it's THREE chlorine atoms replace THREE hydroxyl groups but don't hold my feet to the fire on this.
jurry
03-23-2005, 10:06 AM
Erik,
I think it's THREE chlorine atoms replace THREE hydroxyl groups but don't hold my feet to the fire on this.
I think you're right. I know the chlroine atoms replace hydrogen atoms, and it's either 3:2 or 3:3, I can't recall. Either way, it ends up being chlorinated.
I think it's THREE chlorine atoms replace THREE hydroxyl groups but don't hold my feet to the fire on this.
I think you're right. I know the chlroine atoms replace hydrogen atoms, and it's either 3:2 or 3:3, I can't recall. Either way, it ends up being chlorinated.
CobaltBlue
03-23-2005, 02:18 PM
Lenin had it right as for the difference...
Sucrose: alpha-D-glucopyranosyl-beta-D-fructofuranoside
Sucralose: 1,6-dichloro-1,6-dideoxy-beta-D-fructofuranosyl-4-chloro-deoxy-alpha-D-galactopyranoside.
All that has happened is subsitution of chloro for the hydroxy groups, one of which is on the "glucose" carbon furthest from the disaccharide linkage to the "fructose" unit. (Easier to think of each side in its hydrolyzed form).
On the fructose unit, both of the hydroxy's normally found as part of the CH2OH linkage on carbons adjacent to the oxygen in the ring are replaced...
Sucrose: alpha-D-glucopyranosyl-beta-D-fructofuranoside
Sucralose: 1,6-dichloro-1,6-dideoxy-beta-D-fructofuranosyl-4-chloro-deoxy-alpha-D-galactopyranoside.
All that has happened is subsitution of chloro for the hydroxy groups, one of which is on the "glucose" carbon furthest from the disaccharide linkage to the "fructose" unit. (Easier to think of each side in its hydrolyzed form).
On the fructose unit, both of the hydroxy's normally found as part of the CH2OH linkage on carbons adjacent to the oxygen in the ring are replaced...
stacker2ephedra
03-23-2005, 03:38 PM
Aspartame is poison. You should get Stevia instead. Just got mine yesterday.
People are dieying suddenly and getting sick using aspartame. You should read more about artificial sweeteners. Did you know that the FDA is trying really hard to keep people ignorant about stevia?
i heard that sugar substitute is bad but then splenda is said to be made from sugar itself. does anyone know the risks or have any input on this?
People are dieying suddenly and getting sick using aspartame. You should read more about artificial sweeteners. Did you know that the FDA is trying really hard to keep people ignorant about stevia?
i heard that sugar substitute is bad but then splenda is said to be made from sugar itself. does anyone know the risks or have any input on this?
jurry
03-24-2005, 09:21 AM
Lenin had it right as for the difference...
Sucrose: alpha-D-glucopyranosyl-beta-D-fructofuranoside
Sucralose: 1,6-dichloro-1,6-dideoxy-beta-D-fructofuranosyl-4-chloro-deoxy-alpha-D-galactopyranoside.
All that has happened is subsitution of chloro for the hydroxy groups, one of which is on the "glucose" carbon furthest from the disaccharide linkage to the "fructose" unit. (Easier to think of each side in its hydrolyzed form).
On the fructose unit, both of the hydroxy's normally found as part of the CH2OH linkage on carbons adjacent to the oxygen in the ring are replaced...
Thanks for that information. So, one hydrogen atom on the glucose has been replaces, and two hydrogen atoms on the fructose has been replaced. Both by chlorine. So, there are three chlorine atoms as opposed to three hydrogen atoms, correct?
Sucrose: alpha-D-glucopyranosyl-beta-D-fructofuranoside
Sucralose: 1,6-dichloro-1,6-dideoxy-beta-D-fructofuranosyl-4-chloro-deoxy-alpha-D-galactopyranoside.
All that has happened is subsitution of chloro for the hydroxy groups, one of which is on the "glucose" carbon furthest from the disaccharide linkage to the "fructose" unit. (Easier to think of each side in its hydrolyzed form).
On the fructose unit, both of the hydroxy's normally found as part of the CH2OH linkage on carbons adjacent to the oxygen in the ring are replaced...
Thanks for that information. So, one hydrogen atom on the glucose has been replaces, and two hydrogen atoms on the fructose has been replaced. Both by chlorine. So, there are three chlorine atoms as opposed to three hydrogen atoms, correct?
CobaltBlue
03-24-2005, 10:42 AM
Hi Erik,
Actually, if you remove the alcohol group -OH, and replace it with the chloride -Cl...
If you put the -Cl in place of the -H, you get the hypochlorite -OCl
Again, there are natural forms of halogenated compounds and synthetic. Sometimes, synthetic forms are harmful, sometimes not. It all depends on the toxicological properties of the molecules, which sometimes can be predicted well, and sometimes not. There is a natural fear of halogenated synthetics, maybe because pesticides also contains these same halides? Then again, phosphates are vital to our life and body function, yet there are organophosphate insecticides too--all depends on the mode of action.
Actually, if you remove the alcohol group -OH, and replace it with the chloride -Cl...
If you put the -Cl in place of the -H, you get the hypochlorite -OCl
Again, there are natural forms of halogenated compounds and synthetic. Sometimes, synthetic forms are harmful, sometimes not. It all depends on the toxicological properties of the molecules, which sometimes can be predicted well, and sometimes not. There is a natural fear of halogenated synthetics, maybe because pesticides also contains these same halides? Then again, phosphates are vital to our life and body function, yet there are organophosphate insecticides too--all depends on the mode of action.
Jennita
03-26-2005, 03:02 AM
In moderation, sugar isn't all that bad. But there is no such thing as moderation I guess these days and we resort to chemicals. Well, my husband only drinks diet 7 up and has for years, and the recent infomation about nutrisweet supressing serotonin which leads to irritability, headache and increased appetite probably won't stop him. But, he is irritable most times, is overweight and has a big appetite.
I on the other hand prefer sugar, again, in moderation, and I am not a large woman...but then again, I watch the junk, eat correct portions and exercise. That's really the key.
I suppose all these artificial sweetners can be helpful but I really think they are over-rated as far as dieting goes. I know lots of people who do not touch regular soft drinks for years and still are heavy.
I on the other hand prefer sugar, again, in moderation, and I am not a large woman...but then again, I watch the junk, eat correct portions and exercise. That's really the key.
I suppose all these artificial sweetners can be helpful but I really think they are over-rated as far as dieting goes. I know lots of people who do not touch regular soft drinks for years and still are heavy.
Lenin
03-26-2005, 10:12 AM
Jennita,
The numbers do it for me:
2 cans of Regular PEPSI a day: 300 calories.
In a year that's 109,500 Kcal over and above DIET PEPSI and represents 109,500/3500 or 31 POUNDS OF FAT :eek:,,,and that's all in ONE YEAR.
Of course, you could RUN it off but that darned highway to the MOON isn't built yet.
I know LOTS of people who eat LOTS of sugar and their belts overhang with LOTS of fat!:D
The numbers do it for me:
2 cans of Regular PEPSI a day: 300 calories.
In a year that's 109,500 Kcal over and above DIET PEPSI and represents 109,500/3500 or 31 POUNDS OF FAT :eek:,,,and that's all in ONE YEAR.
Of course, you could RUN it off but that darned highway to the MOON isn't built yet.
I know LOTS of people who eat LOTS of sugar and their belts overhang with LOTS of fat!:D
Jennita
03-26-2005, 05:02 PM
Jennita,
The numbers do it for me:
2 cans of Regular PEPSI a day: 300 calories.
In a year that's 109,500 Kcal over and above DIET PEPSI and represents 109,500/3500 or 31 POUNDS OF FAT :eek:,,,and that's all in ONE YEAR.
Of course, you could RUN it off but that darned highway to the MOON isn't built yet.
I know LOTS of people who eat LOTS of sugar and their belts overhang with LOTS of fat!:D
THat's my point, people who eat LOTS of sugar are going to gain weight, but I didn't say eat LOTS of sugar, I said IN MODERATION.
When people eat or drink something in moderation, they maintain their correct bodyweight.
Now, I drink a minuimum of one coca-cola a day, sometimes two, and I'm not gaining that 31 pounds per year. In fact, I've lost 20 and have a goal for 20 more, I just watch the portions and exercise at least 4 times a week. My husband, on the other hand, doesn't exercise at all, drinks only diet 7-up and is way too heavy.
But I'm trying lately to skip a day once in awhile on the whole coca-cola issue, since it is empty of nutrition and those are calories wasted that could be used on something that will be more nourishing.
I guess my main point in this thread was that we shouldn't look to chemical substitutes(which may or may not be healthy for us) for a quick fix for the weight problem, it's an overall effort and lifestyle change.
The numbers do it for me:
2 cans of Regular PEPSI a day: 300 calories.
In a year that's 109,500 Kcal over and above DIET PEPSI and represents 109,500/3500 or 31 POUNDS OF FAT :eek:,,,and that's all in ONE YEAR.
Of course, you could RUN it off but that darned highway to the MOON isn't built yet.
I know LOTS of people who eat LOTS of sugar and their belts overhang with LOTS of fat!:D
THat's my point, people who eat LOTS of sugar are going to gain weight, but I didn't say eat LOTS of sugar, I said IN MODERATION.
When people eat or drink something in moderation, they maintain their correct bodyweight.
Now, I drink a minuimum of one coca-cola a day, sometimes two, and I'm not gaining that 31 pounds per year. In fact, I've lost 20 and have a goal for 20 more, I just watch the portions and exercise at least 4 times a week. My husband, on the other hand, doesn't exercise at all, drinks only diet 7-up and is way too heavy.
But I'm trying lately to skip a day once in awhile on the whole coca-cola issue, since it is empty of nutrition and those are calories wasted that could be used on something that will be more nourishing.
I guess my main point in this thread was that we shouldn't look to chemical substitutes(which may or may not be healthy for us) for a quick fix for the weight problem, it's an overall effort and lifestyle change.
Lenin
03-27-2005, 09:32 AM
And I know a man who didn't smoke and died of lung cancer. And skinny people who eat OREOS. None of which is relevant.
TWO cans of Regular Soda a day is equvalent to 31 pounds of fat a year, and those tenth of a MILLION calories can be used to eat something else or to contribute to weight loss if the simple substitution of 2 cans of Diet Soda is made.
Even ONE can a day is 15 pounds weight gain year. To my mind, changing sodas it is the singularly EASIEST way to lose sugar calories.
My point is that the substitution is not an unhealthy one...ask any Type 2 diabetic.
There is NOTHING more healthy about a can of chemically enhanced sugar water called SODA. Both regular and diet soda are a useful adjunct in our lives, little else. Neither is a "healthy food" but one makes you FAT the other doesn't!
TWO cans of Regular Soda a day is equvalent to 31 pounds of fat a year, and those tenth of a MILLION calories can be used to eat something else or to contribute to weight loss if the simple substitution of 2 cans of Diet Soda is made.
Even ONE can a day is 15 pounds weight gain year. To my mind, changing sodas it is the singularly EASIEST way to lose sugar calories.
My point is that the substitution is not an unhealthy one...ask any Type 2 diabetic.
There is NOTHING more healthy about a can of chemically enhanced sugar water called SODA. Both regular and diet soda are a useful adjunct in our lives, little else. Neither is a "healthy food" but one makes you FAT the other doesn't!
Lenin
03-27-2005, 09:48 AM
And I know a man who didn't smoke and died of lung cancer. And skinny people who eat OREOS. None of which is relevant.
TWO cans of Regular Soda a day is equvalent to 31 pounds of fat a year, and those tenth of a MILLION calories can be used to eat something else or to contribute to weight loss if the simple substitution of 2 cans of Diet Soda is made.
Even ONE can a day is 15 pounds weight gain year. To my mind, changing sodas it is the singularly EASIEST way to lose sugar calories.
My point is that the substitution is not an unhealthy one...ask any Type 2 diabetic.
There is NOTHING more healthy about a can of chemically enhanced sugar water called SODA...both regular and diet soda are a useful adjunct in our lives. Neither is a health food but one makes you FAT the other doesn't making one a LOT better unless the soda drinker is trying to gain weight!
TWO cans of Regular Soda a day is equvalent to 31 pounds of fat a year, and those tenth of a MILLION calories can be used to eat something else or to contribute to weight loss if the simple substitution of 2 cans of Diet Soda is made.
Even ONE can a day is 15 pounds weight gain year. To my mind, changing sodas it is the singularly EASIEST way to lose sugar calories.
My point is that the substitution is not an unhealthy one...ask any Type 2 diabetic.
There is NOTHING more healthy about a can of chemically enhanced sugar water called SODA...both regular and diet soda are a useful adjunct in our lives. Neither is a health food but one makes you FAT the other doesn't making one a LOT better unless the soda drinker is trying to gain weight!
girlygirl11
03-27-2005, 10:43 AM
The only way 2 cans of pop would equal 32 pounds of fat in one year is if those calories were over and above the person's daily recommended intake. If they require 2000 Calories and drink 2 cans of pop and eat a bag of oreos to get to the 2000 mark and NOT above it, they will not gain weight. Granted this isnt the healthiest way to live, but generally speaking, you won't gain weight from 2 cans of pop unless they are extra calories that you do not need!
Looking at it oppositely, it is somewhat reasonable to expect some weight loss if those two cans were subsituted with lower or no calorie drinks- because then you would be consuming less calories. At about 150 Cals per can, 300 Cals a day times 7 days is 2100 Cals less in one week- not even enough for a one pound weight loss, but enough for 1 and a bit lbs in 2 weeks. So in reality, it wouldn't be as drastic a loss, but as with any lower cal diet substitution, some loss would be expected.
Looking at it oppositely, it is somewhat reasonable to expect some weight loss if those two cans were subsituted with lower or no calorie drinks- because then you would be consuming less calories. At about 150 Cals per can, 300 Cals a day times 7 days is 2100 Cals less in one week- not even enough for a one pound weight loss, but enough for 1 and a bit lbs in 2 weeks. So in reality, it wouldn't be as drastic a loss, but as with any lower cal diet substitution, some loss would be expected.
washee
03-27-2005, 01:27 PM
Hmmmm the comments of stevia are seeming to be overlooked. Yes FDA say that these sugars are safe, but many many years ago cigarettes were thought to be safe and look where that got us. I am on a constant diet and so lot's of things I consume have splenda in it but I find if I use over a certain amount I get reactions ie...swelling in the lymph nodes and pain in joints as well as headaches which are directly related to overuse of the artificial sugars. I found that with the stevia I get none of these reactions and Stevia is from a natural source. I am curious as to why it is not being looked into as an alternative. Could the food industry be in cahoots with the artificial sugar industry?
Jennita
03-27-2005, 05:11 PM
Ok, I think we can all agree that soda, whether it be diet or regular, is not healthy. Water is healthy, and we shouldn't be drinking soda in lieu of water, that's for sure. Some people do just that, a very unhealthy habit even if it's diet soda.
But all the massive sugar and carb hysteria we are all suffering from is a little over the top, isn't it?
But all the massive sugar and carb hysteria we are all suffering from is a little over the top, isn't it?
Jennita
03-27-2005, 05:14 PM
Hey, my daughter tried Stevia and she said it sorta made her feel hyper, so I'm not sure if herbal sweetners are all that safe either but then again maybe it's just her. Anyway, she prefers dextrose(corn sugar) which is hard to find but we discovered it is the choice sweetner of bodybuilders and we ordered it from one of those sites.
Vera_Floyd
03-28-2005, 03:07 AM
I've looked into the health concerns regarding sucralose (Splenda) and aspartame, and, of course, everyone has different answers. The majority of the websites I visited though generally agree that surcalose is safe and aspartame has been known to lead to health problems. These products are relatively new on the markets, and good old North America has the "sell it then test it" approach to new commodities. I tend to use half real sugar and half Splenda in baking (ie: if the recipe calls for 1cup sugar, I'll do 1/2cup Splenda, 1/2cup sugar), and I haven't noticed any problems. So this is basically my reply to this question: I don't know, currently nobody truly knows. Just don't OD and your body will probably be able to handle them.
Lenin
03-28-2005, 09:21 AM
The FDA has NOT approved the use of Stevia as a food additive. The reason is that the manufacturers will not do the tests required to prove it's safety in the general population, for whatever reason.
Thus it remains an herbal "supplement" for which no health claims can be made.
It tastes bitter and costs a GREAT deal more than sugar or any of it's no calories substitues.
Thus it remains an herbal "supplement" for which no health claims can be made.
It tastes bitter and costs a GREAT deal more than sugar or any of it's no calories substitues.
jurry
03-29-2005, 12:18 PM
Here's an interesting article I found about all the stuff going on with Splenda right now.
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050324/dcth023_4.html
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050324/dcth023_4.html
omg14omg
04-30-2005, 08:09 PM
I recently have started using Splenda. I am consuming a normal a normal amount. Well now I have stopped because since I have been using it I am very short of breath and am breaking out in hives all over my body. I researched this online and many people have the same thing happening to them after eating splenda. So I am allergic to it, but personally unless you are diabetic you shouldn't really eat artificial sweeteners like splenda because its not healthy. I mean who knows..in a few years doctors will find out that splenda causes some disease or something. Its a bit far - fetched but who knows.
jurry
05-02-2005, 10:08 AM
I've been avoiding Splenda altogether recently. It's simply not worth all the cramping and diarrhea I get when I have any.
Crossbow
05-06-2005, 03:25 PM
My mom uses Spelnda. I think it tastes terrible and it doesn't work for cooking. To me, aspartame and Splenda taste exactly the same. It's my personal belief that they're poisonous and they'll kill you, but I can't prove it! ;)
My roomate bought a package of Stevia. She says it tastes fine, but I noticed she's only used it once in the past YEAR since she bought it!
My roomate bought a package of Stevia. She says it tastes fine, but I noticed she's only used it once in the past YEAR since she bought it!
jurry
05-10-2005, 10:16 AM
I've heard peoplee complaining about a chemical aftertaste with Splenda. I've never really noticed that. I have other problems with it that prevent me from using it, but I'm not sure the aftertaste is something I'd want either.
racehorse
06-24-2005, 03:53 AM
Why would you want to ingest a molecule that your body has no evolutionary knowledge of? Twenty five years ago some were questioning hydrogenated fats but were overwhelmed by industry and their poodle FDA. Artificial molecules may have untoward consequences that are not readily apparent. The large increase in autism, obesity, mental disorders, diabetes and other conditions may be someday be conclusively placed at the increase in such artificial molecules.
racehorse
07-01-2005, 08:00 PM
I came across the process that is used to make spenda and thought some of you might be interested in the chemicals used:
1. sucrose, trityl chloride, dimethylformamide and 4-methylmorpholine, tritylated acetic anhydride, TRISPA (6,1',6'-tri-O-trityl-penta-O-acetylsucrose), hydrogen chloride, toluene, 4-PAS (sucrose 2,3,4,3',4'-pentaacetate) methyl isobutyl ketone and acetic acid, 6-PAS (sucrose 2,3,6,3',4'-pentaacetate) thionyl chloride, toluene, benzyltriethylammoniumchloride, TOSPA (sucralose pentaacetate) methanol, sodium methoxide
Quite a list and several of the chemicals are known carcinogins, given this list and similar lists for other artificial sweeteners it is difficult to rationalize there use.
1. sucrose, trityl chloride, dimethylformamide and 4-methylmorpholine, tritylated acetic anhydride, TRISPA (6,1',6'-tri-O-trityl-penta-O-acetylsucrose), hydrogen chloride, toluene, 4-PAS (sucrose 2,3,4,3',4'-pentaacetate) methyl isobutyl ketone and acetic acid, 6-PAS (sucrose 2,3,6,3',4'-pentaacetate) thionyl chloride, toluene, benzyltriethylammoniumchloride, TOSPA (sucralose pentaacetate) methanol, sodium methoxide
Quite a list and several of the chemicals are known carcinogins, given this list and similar lists for other artificial sweeteners it is difficult to rationalize there use.
Jess75
07-01-2005, 11:27 PM
Yeah, I think this stuff can be bad if you use like TONS of it, but in moderation is okay. I also read that human would have to injest TONS of this stuff to get sick. I don't think it's good to consume EVERYDAY though, but for a nice dessert, that's sugar free a few times a week should be fine if your watching your sugar intake or whatever. It's great for diabetics.
I'm using up my huge box of it that I bought. I love it in my coffee, it's so convenient cause I only need one. Oh well. I guess i"ll have to use sugar, and get myself to like coffee without the sweet taste.
I should be giving up the coffee too, but, one step at a time. ;)
But then again, coffee has some benefits too,lol I read that 2 cups a day won't do any harm and has benefits too. :)
I'm using up my huge box of it that I bought. I love it in my coffee, it's so convenient cause I only need one. Oh well. I guess i"ll have to use sugar, and get myself to like coffee without the sweet taste.
I should be giving up the coffee too, but, one step at a time. ;)
But then again, coffee has some benefits too,lol I read that 2 cups a day won't do any harm and has benefits too. :)
Concerned Male
07-02-2005, 12:56 AM
I wouldn't use either one, especially aspartame. I don't think you would have to consume 'tons' of aspartame to have negative effects on your body. They are artifical chemicals. Stevia is a natural sweetner, that is sweeter than sugar.
racehorse
07-02-2005, 01:43 AM
Yeah, I think this stuff can be bad if you use like TONS of it, but in moderation is okay. I also read that human would have to injest TONS of this stuff to get sick. I don't think it's good to consume EVERYDAY though, but for a nice dessert, that's sugar free a few times a week should be fine if your watching your sugar intake or whatever. It's great for diabetics.
I'm using up my huge box of it that I bought. I love it in my coffee, it's so convenient cause I only need one. Oh well. I guess i"ll have to use sugar, and get myself to like coffee without the sweet taste.
I should be giving up the coffee too, but, one step at a time. ;)
But then again, coffee has some benefits too,lol I read that 2 cups a day won't do any harm and has benefits too. :)
I guess my point wasn't clearly made. Perhaps, how much poison would you like to eat each day? would be a better question. I'm not saying a single dose will kill you but there are enough environmental toxins that are unavoidable, why add others?
I'm using up my huge box of it that I bought. I love it in my coffee, it's so convenient cause I only need one. Oh well. I guess i"ll have to use sugar, and get myself to like coffee without the sweet taste.
I should be giving up the coffee too, but, one step at a time. ;)
But then again, coffee has some benefits too,lol I read that 2 cups a day won't do any harm and has benefits too. :)
I guess my point wasn't clearly made. Perhaps, how much poison would you like to eat each day? would be a better question. I'm not saying a single dose will kill you but there are enough environmental toxins that are unavoidable, why add others?
Jess75
07-02-2005, 01:46 AM
I'm just telling you what I read. :) I'm just saying in TOTAL moderation is probably fine.
What do you think about Kefir?
What do you think about Kefir?
crayzechick
07-02-2005, 04:25 AM
Just an interesting sidenote:
Taste is actually genetic, when it comes to sweeteners. Those that think aspartame has a slightly bitter taste have actually inherited a gene that makes them percieve it so, while some of us taste no bitterness at all.
Personally, the only times this really comes into question for me is in my tea, and I like stevia. A little goes a very long way, so it is not actually all that expensive.
Probably our best bet would be to try to train ourselves not to be so in love with sweets. But easier said than done.
Taste is actually genetic, when it comes to sweeteners. Those that think aspartame has a slightly bitter taste have actually inherited a gene that makes them percieve it so, while some of us taste no bitterness at all.
Personally, the only times this really comes into question for me is in my tea, and I like stevia. A little goes a very long way, so it is not actually all that expensive.
Probably our best bet would be to try to train ourselves not to be so in love with sweets. But easier said than done.
racehorse
07-02-2005, 12:38 PM
I'm just telling you what I read. :) I'm just saying in TOTAL moderation is probably fine.
What do you think about Kefir?
I think that dairy is not a food for humans beyond toddler size and then only if it is human breast milk.
What do you think about Kefir?
I think that dairy is not a food for humans beyond toddler size and then only if it is human breast milk.
Jess75
07-02-2005, 12:48 PM
I think that dairy is not a food for humans beyond toddler size and then only if it is human breast milk.
Hmmm, according to Mercola, this stuff is GREAT! Of course there are always those who will not think so(find reasons). I know I asked, but you seem like your SO against everything, and i had a feeling you'd be against it, however, EVERY article that I read on it says that this stuff is EXTREMELY healthy. I was just curious what you thought about it. :wave:
Hmmm, according to Mercola, this stuff is GREAT! Of course there are always those who will not think so(find reasons). I know I asked, but you seem like your SO against everything, and i had a feeling you'd be against it, however, EVERY article that I read on it says that this stuff is EXTREMELY healthy. I was just curious what you thought about it. :wave:
Concerned Male
07-02-2005, 03:32 PM
What exactly is Kefir? If it's a dairy product, hopefully it doesn't have the harmful antibiotics and hormones that a lot of the junk milk today has in it.
racehorse
07-02-2005, 03:52 PM
It is dairy with all the casein (a milk protein that is connected with a number of autoimmune diseases) and all the other baddies found in dairy. It is mostly made from the same stuff (milk) you might find objectionable.