Artificial Sweeteners

[Flex2019]

Something tells me that you guys worrying about Splenda/sucralose being "chemical garbage" think nothing of injecting 6cc per week of compounds that were brewed in someone's kitchen. Funny shit right there.

To answer the initial question, I go with Splenda every time when I'm dieting. Yes, there are natural, unrefined sugars available, but your body doesn't know the difference between those and any refined sugar. It's all sugar in the end.

 

[Pharm_Fed]

You link to Wake Up World and to Dr. Mercola, one of the biggest quacks on the planet? Let's see the studies.

So answer this question...how are you defining health? What makes stevia healthier? There are plenty of natural things...cocaine for instance comes from the coco plant...SURELY that is "healthier" than splenda because splenda is a chemical and cocaine comes from an herb. Right?

Are you being intentionally dense or just argumentative? Healthy would be having the most benefits with the least deleterious effects.

No reason to attack the articles. They are just reporting a study done by Duke University. And here is a link to the study for you.

Splenda alters gut microflora and... [J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2008] - PubMed - NCBI

Comparing Splenda to cocaine is hardly an apples to apples comparison, but nice try. If you were to compare coca plant as a natural analgesic to something like Demerol or Oxycontin I would absoluetly say coca would be the better choice. But that's really neither here nor there.

 

[Pharm_Fed]

Something tells me that you guys worrying about Splenda/sucralose being "chemical garbage" think nothing of injecting 6cc per week of compounds that were brewed in someone's kitchen. Funny shit right there.

To answer the initial question, I go with Splenda every time when I'm dieting. Yes, there are natural, unrefined sugars available, but your body doesn't know the difference between those and any refined sugar. It's all sugar in the end.

That is absolutely false.

 

[andrew.peplin]

I'm always open to hear what the studies are saying but I do think that side effects can be blown out of proportion sometimes like dalvares post says. Like Advil for instance causes:


Severe allergic reactions (rash; hives; itching; trouble breathing; tightness in the chest; swelling of the mouth, face, lips, or tongue); bloody or black, tarry stools; change in the amount of urine produced; chest pain; confusion; dark urine; depression; fainting; fast or irregular heartbeat; fever, chills, or persistent sore throat; mental or mood changes; numbness of an arm or leg; one-sided weakness; red, swollen, blistered, or peeling skin; ringing in the ears; seizures; severe headache or dizziness; severe or persistent stomach pain or nausea; severe vomiting; shortness of breath; stiff neck; sudden or unexplained weight gain; swelling of hands, legs, or feet; unusual bruising or bleeding; unusual joint or muscle pain; unusual tiredness or weakness; vision or speech changes; vomit that looks like coffee grounds; yellowing of the skin or eyes.


How many of you have experienced more than one of those effects? But always good to be informed.

 

[Pharm_Fed]

i think the splenda fear is dumb

not to mention like 99% of the bulk of the packet isnt even sucralose but maltodextrin

its like a few micrograms of the actual 'splenda'

i havent seen anything conclusive, or logical, that makes me think eating splenda will give me alzheimers or cancer... i mean seriously,... how??? can someone break that down for me in logical laymans terms how sucralose is going to give you a horrible disease?

One mechanism this may occur through is the alteration of gut flora, which the study done by Duke University shows is effected. Gut flora has been linked to multiple diseases including autism, several autoimmune disorders and in some cases even things like schizophrenia. There is actually a specific diet called the GAPS (Gut And Psychology Syndrome) diet designed by Dr. Campbell-McBride which address, and corrects inbalanced gut flora to bring about better health.

 

[littlefoot]

Are you being intentionally dense or just argumentative? Healthy would be having the most benefits with the least deleterious effects.

No reason to attack the articles. They are just reporting a study done by Duke University. And here is a link to the study for you.

Splenda alters gut microflora and... [J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2008] - PubMed - NCBI

Comparing Splenda to cocaine is hardly an apples to apples comparison, but nice try. If you were to compare coca plant as a natural analgesic to something like Demerol or Oxycontin I would absoluetly say coca would be the better choice. But that's really neither here nor there.

You compared what I said to SMASHING a phone to pieces...and my comparison is outlandish? You don't need to insult, I'm not trying to start a flamewar, but I think that certain things are unfairly demonized.

You had posted links that weren't reputable, the study is more reputable. Again, the study is short sighted and really inconclusive...most splenda studies would require humans to consume pounds of pure sucralose per day in order to start seeing negative health effects.

I was seriously asking what your definition of health is...because I don't really believe in healthy vs. unhealthy foods for the most part...only healthy vs. unhealthy diets.

For example, I think that going out to Mcdonalds and loading up every once in a while is not unhealthy. I do think that eating only at Mcdonalds would be unhealthy. I also think never eating there (if it's a place you'd like to eat) could be considered unhealthy.

If someone consumes tons of splenda for their entire lives, I can see problems arising. I could also see stevia potentially leading to issues. South American tribal people didn't consume 2-4+ stevia packets per day or constantly drink protein shakes with stevia in them.

I'm always open to hear what the studies are saying but I do think that side effects can be blown out of proportion sometimes like dalvares post says. Like Advil for instance causes:

Severe allergic reactions (rash; hives; itching; trouble breathing; tightness in the chest; swelling of the mouth, face, lips, or tongue); bloody or black, tarry stools; change in the amount of urine produced; chest pain; confusion; dark urine; depression; fainting; fast or irregular heartbeat; fever, chills, or persistent sore throat; mental or mood changes; numbness of an arm or leg; one-sided weakness; red, swollen, blistered, or peeling skin; ringing in the ears; seizures; severe headache or dizziness; severe or persistent stomach pain or nausea; severe vomiting; shortness of breath; stiff neck; sudden or unexplained weight gain; swelling of hands, legs, or feet; unusual bruising or bleeding; unusual joint or muscle pain; unusual tiredness or weakness; vision or speech changes; vomit that looks like coffee grounds; yellowing of the skin or eyes.


How many of you have experienced more than one of those effects? But always good to be informed.

Bingo.

 

[littlefoot]

One mechanism this may occur through is the alteration of gut flora, which the study done by Duke University shows is effected. Gut flora has been linked to multiple diseases including autism, several autoimmune disorders and in some cases even things like schizophrenia. There is actually a specific diet called the GAPS (Gut And Psychology Syndrome) diet designed by Dr. Campbell-McBride which address, and corrects inbalanced gut flora to bring about better health.

The rats were fed up to 1000mg of sucralose per kg, however. That would be a ridiculous amount for humans to consume.

Human studies would be nicer. I'm not sure they exist, unfortunately.

 

[jm425]

i think the splenda fear is dumb

not to mention like 99% of the bulk of the packet isnt even sucralose but maltodextrin

its like a few micrograms of the actual 'splenda'

i havent seen anything conclusive, or logical, that makes me think eating splenda will give me alzheimers or cancer... i mean seriously,... how??? can someone break that down for me in logical laymans terms how sucralose is going to give you a horrible disease?

Read my post again. It says aspartame can cause alzheimers and saccharin can cause cancer. You would have to consume enormous amounts though. Never said anything about splenda causing those. It would be wise reading posts completely before making such erroneous assumptions.

 

[littlefoot]

Read my post again. It says aspartame causes alzheimers and saccharin causes cancer. Never said anything about splenda causing those. It would be wise reading posts completely before making such erroneous assumptions.

Can you cite some sources on those claims?

 

[jm425]

Can you cite some sources on those claims?

If you do the research yourself, you can clearly see that there are 2 sides to it. Some argue that it's safe while others argue that it can cause serious health issues at higher doses and long term use. Take it for what it's worth and come to your own conclusions bro. Whether or not it's true, I'm not willing to consume these 2 sweetners over a long period of time and find out.

 

[Pharm_Fed]

You compared what I said to SMASHING a phone to pieces...and my comparison is outlandish? You don't need to insult, I'm not trying to start a flamewar, but I think that certain things are unfairly demonized.

You had posted links that weren't reputable, the study is more reputable. Again, the study is short sighted and really inconclusive...most splenda studies would require humans to consume pounds of pure sucralose per day in order to start seeing negative health effects.

I was seriously asking what your definition of health is...because I don't really believe in healthy vs. unhealthy foods for the most part...only healthy vs. unhealthy diets.

For example, I think that going out to Mcdonalds and loading up every once in a while is not unhealthy. I do think that eating only at Mcdonalds would be unhealthy. I also think never eating there (if it's a place you'd like to eat) could be considered unhealthy.

If someone consumes tons of splenda for their entire lives, I can see problems arising. I could also see stevia potentially leading to issues. South American tribal people didn't consume 2-4+ stevia packets per day or constantly drink protein shakes with stevia in them.

My phone comparison was a methaphor making the point that it's silly to not care just because there are other toxins you will still consume. Perhaps that point was lost.

I disagree with the notion that never eating a McDonalds if you like eating there is unhealthy, but I digress.

The rats were fed up to 1000mg of sucralose per kg, however. That would be a ridiculous amount for humans to consume.

Human studies would be nicer. I'm not sure they exist, unfortunately.

Human trials would always be nicer, but are not always realistic. All we can do is observe and make inferences based on the results a given study presents. It also clearly states after the dosage given to the rats (1.1-11mg/kg) that the acceptable safe daily intake for humans is 5mg/kg so given the resutls that occurred in a short 12 week span, I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude that a lower dosage over a longer period of time would have the same deleterious effects.

 

[jm425]

The methanol produced by the metabolism of aspartame is absorbed and quickly converted into formaldehyde and then completely converted to formic acid, which, due to its long half life, is considered the primary mechanism of toxicity in methanol poisoning. The methanol from aspartame is unlikely to be a safety concern for several reasons. The amount of methanol in aspartame is less than that found in fruit juices and citrus fruits, and there are other dietary sources for methanol such as fermented beverages. Therefore, the amount of methanol produced from aspartame is likely to be less than that from natural sources. With regards to formaldehyde, it is rapidly converted in the body, and the amounts of formaldehyde from the metabolism of aspartame is trivial when compared to the amounts produced routinely by the human body and from other foods and drugs. At the highest expected human doses of consumption of aspartame, there are no increased blood levels of methanol or formic acid,[8] and ingesting aspartame at the 90th percentile of intake would produce 25 times less methanol than would be considered toxic.

So if you are consuming small amounts of it, and not overconsuming, then in theory you should be fine. Like I said before, you would have to take in large amounts for long periods of time. The danger is there, but most don't have to worry unless they are drinking 12+diet sodas daily.

 

[littlefoot]

If you do the research yourself, you can clearly see that there are 2 sides to it. Some argue that it's safe while others argue that it can cause serious health issues at higher doses and long term use. Take it for what it's worth and come to your own conclusions bro. Whether or not it's true, I'm not willing to consume these 2 sweetners over a long period of time and find out.

I have researched it myself in the past. Unless there are new studies, then your claims have little to stand on. Please refrain from making these claims unless you're willing to post the relevant studies, otherwise your words aren't supported and are essentially useless.

 

[jm425]

In 1958, the United States Congress amended the Food, Drugs, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 with the Delaney clause to mandate that the Food and Drug Administration not approve substances that "induce cancer in man, or, after tests, [are] found to induce cancer in animals." Studies in laboratory rats during the early 1970s linked saccharin with the development of bladder cancer in rodents. As a consequence, all food containing saccharin was labeled with a warning.[18]

However, in 2000, the warning labels were removed because scientists learned that rodents, unlike humans, have a unique combination of high pH, high calcium phosphate, and high protein levels in their urine.[19][20] One or more of the proteins that are more prevalent in male rats combine with calcium phosphate and saccharin to produce microcrystals that damage the lining of the bladder. Over time, the rat's bladder responds to this damage by over-producing cells to repair the damage, which leads to tumor formation. As this does not occur in humans, there is no elevated bladder cancer risk.

Take it for what it's worth. I still avoid saccharin whenever possible. I don't care if scientists removed the warning label. I'm not going to risk my life by hoping that saccharin won't give me cancer.

 

[jm425]

I have researched it myself in the past. Unless there are new studies, then your claims have little to stand on. Please refrain from making these claims unless you're willing to post the relevant studies, otherwise your words aren't supported and are essentially useless.

Read my post above. Go ahead and consume large amounts of equal and saccharin over a long period of time and see what happens. I wouldn't risk it. Like I said there are 2 sides to this.

 

[littlefoot]

My phone comparison was a methaphor making the point that it's silly to not care just because there are other toxins you will still consume. Perhaps that point was lost.

I disagree with the notion that never eating a McDonalds if you like eating there is unhealthy, but I digress.

Human trials would always be nicer, but are not always realistic. All we can do is observe and make inferences based on the results a given study presents. It also clearly states after the dosage given to the rats (1.1-11mg/kg) that the acceptable safe daily intake for humans is 5mg/kg so given the resutls that occurred in a short 12 week span, I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude that a lower dosage over a longer period of time would have the same deleterious effects.

I understood your point, but I thought it was far to generalized. I don't think there is conclusive research to talk about mortality rates, quality of life, etc that shows that splenda is unhealthy or worse than stevia or anything else. I don't think any can be labeled a "toxin." If there were definitive proof that either of these things were "unhealthy" then I would agree with you.

Hot pepper consumption in South East Asia can lead to stomach cancer over time...peppers aren't considered toxins, they're natural food products, but they can lead to health problems even in moderate doses. Should we label them as unhealthy and bash the consumers of them?

I think mental health is important...and mental health & physical health can be linked in many ways.

It might not be unreasonable, but it might be. (For example, if I take 200mg DNP for 365 days I MIGHT not encounter health problems...but I might...however if I take 1.5g for three days, I could die...yes DNP is an extreme example, but it's just to highlight that lower doses over longer periods does not necessarily equate to short term, ridiculously high doses).

That's my problem with the whole point...there are a bunch of conclusions and guesses, no actual data. So to simply label something as an unhealthy toxin and its users as potentially careless? That I have a problem with, especially given the nature of this board.

The methanol produced by the metabolism of aspartame is absorbed and quickly converted into formaldehyde and then completely converted to formic acid, which, due to its long half life, is considered the primary mechanism of toxicity in methanol poisoning. The methanol from aspartame is unlikely to be a safety concern for several reasons. The amount of methanol in aspartame is less than that found in fruit juices and citrus fruits, and there are other dietary sources for methanol such as fermented beverages. Therefore, the amount of methanol produced from aspartame is likely to be less than that from natural sources. With regards to formaldehyde, it is rapidly converted in the body, and the amounts of formaldehyde from the metabolism of aspartame is trivial when compared to the amounts produced routinely by the human body and from other foods and drugs. At the highest expected human doses of consumption of aspartame, there are no increased blood levels of methanol or formic acid,[8] and ingesting aspartame at the 90th percentile of intake would produce 25 times less methanol than would be considered toxic.

So if you are consuming small amounts of it, and not overconsuming, then in theory you should be fine. Like I said before, you would have to take in large amounts for long periods of time. The danger is there, but most don't have to worry unless they are drinking 12+diet sodas daily.

Here I agree with you. Excellent.

 

[dalvare1]

Read my post again. It says aspartame can cause alzheimers and saccharin can cause cancer. You would have to consume enormous amounts though. Never said anything about splenda causing those. It would be wise reading posts completely before making such erroneous assumptions.

well i wasnt quoting you, or referencing your post specifically, so it would be wise to read my posts before assuming im 'comin at u bro'

 

[jm425]

I understood your point, but I thought it was far to generalized. I don't think there is conclusive research to talk about mortality rates, quality of life, etc that shows that splenda is unhealthy or worse than stevia or anything else. I don't think any can be labeled a "toxin." If there were definitive proof that either of these things were "unhealthy" then I would agree with you.

Hot pepper consumption in South East Asia can lead to stomach cancer over time...peppers aren't considered toxins, they're natural food products, but they can lead to health problems even in moderate doses. Should we label them as unhealthy and bash the consumers of them?

I think mental health is important...and mental health & physical health can be linked in many ways.

It might not be unreasonable, but it might be. (For example, if I take 200mg DNP for 365 days I MIGHT not encounter health problems...but I might...however if I take 1.5g for three days, I could die...yes DNP is an extreme example, but it's just to highlight that lower doses over longer periods does not necessarily equate to short term, ridiculously high doses).

That's my problem with the whole point...there are a bunch of conclusions and guesses, no actual data. So to simply label something as an unhealthy toxin and its users as potentially careless? That I have a problem with, especially given the nature of this board.



Here I agree with you. Excellent.

I should have been more specific. That is totally my bad bro. Seems like consuming small amounts is fine, but long term consumptions of large amounts could potentially lead to health problems down the line.

 

[littlefoot]

Read my post above. Go ahead and consume large amounts of equal and saccharin over a long period of time and see what happens. I wouldn't risk it. Like I said there are 2 sides to this.

There aren't two sides. People feel different ways about them, and will choose to consume them or not, but it's either negative or positive.

Trying to prove a point by posting claims and then telling the people questioning them to do the research is...odd.

Stevia can lower blood sugar to dangerous levels. I think I read that once. I'm claiming it...don't believe me? Look it up for yourself.

See?

 

[jm425]

well i wasnt quoting you, or referencing your post specifically, so it would be wise to read my posts before assuming im 'comin at u bro'

From your post it seemed like you were making those inferences towards splenda. If not, then that my conclusions were wrong.