Artificial Sweeteners

Health, well-being, medicine, aging.
dirtrider
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3178
Joined: May 18th, 2005, 3:46 pm

Re: Artificial Sweeteners

Post by dirtrider »

justmyopinion wrote:Oh wait - I'm confused....I looked at lunch and it's actually Sweet'n Low I use....good or bad?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccharin

Notice, saccharin is from a coal tar derivitive......not unlike sucralose (offshoot of insecticide research) :ohmygod: . I use saccharin too......have for decades. I figure, you gotta die of something someday.....can't live in fear of everything, hey? I accept whatever risk there is of using them.
User avatar
justmyopinion
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3343
Joined: Dec 2nd, 2009, 9:45 am

Re: Artificial Sweeteners

Post by justmyopinion »

they must be better then white sugar at least, right?
User avatar
UnknownResident
Generalissimo Postalot
Posts: 739
Joined: Mar 13th, 2010, 5:25 pm

Re: Artificial Sweeteners

Post by UnknownResident »

According to the FDA's "Final Rule" report, 11% to 27% of sucralose is absorbed in humans, and the rest is excreted unchanged in feces. According to the Japanese Food Sanitation Council, as much as 40% of ingested sucralose is absorbed.

But you said it isn't at all aborbed. Take that back?

According to the HAD, "The manufacturer claims that the chlorine added to sucralose is similar to the chlorine atom in the salt (NaCl) molecule. That is not the case. Sucralose may be more like ingesting tiny amounts of chlorinated pesticides, but we will never know without long-term, independent human research".

The FDA acknowledges that sucralose "is produced at an approximate purity of 98%". While that may sound pretty pure, just what is in that other 2%? It turns out that the final sucralose product contains small amounts of potentially dangerous substances such as:

* Heavy Metals (e.g., Lead)
* Arsenic
* Triphenilphosphine Oxide
* Methanol
* Chlorinated Disaccharides
* Chlorinated Monosaccharide

Although manufacturing guidelines do specify limits on these substances there is no guarantee that such limits will always be met.
dirtrider
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3178
Joined: May 18th, 2005, 3:46 pm

Re: Artificial Sweeteners

Post by dirtrider »

UnknownResident wrote:According to the FDA's "Final Rule" report, 11% to 27% of sucralose is absorbed in humans, and the rest is excreted unchanged in feces. According to the Japanese Food Sanitation Council, as much as 40% of ingested sucralose is absorbed.

But you said it isn't at all aborbed. Take that back?

According to the HAD, "The manufacturer claims that the chlorine added to sucralose is similar to the chlorine atom in the salt (NaCl) molecule. That is not the case. Sucralose may be more like ingesting tiny amounts of chlorinated pesticides, but we will never know without long-term, independent human research".

The FDA acknowledges that sucralose "is produced at an approximate purity of 98%". While that may sound pretty pure, just what is in that other 2%? It turns out that the final sucralose product contains small amounts of potentially dangerous substances such as:

* Heavy Metals (e.g., Lead)
* Arsenic
* Triphenilphosphine Oxide
* Methanol
* Chlorinated Disaccharides
* Chlorinated Monosaccharide

Although manufacturing guidelines do specify limits on these substances there is no guarantee that such limits will always be met.



Ahhh.....absorbed does not mean it's broken down....it's absorbed but it's not fat soluble so it doesn't stay in your body...it's eventually flushed out from your body.

"....The manufacturer claims that the chlorine added to sucralose is similar to the chlorine atom in the salt (NaCl) molecule. That is not the case. Sucralose may be more like ingesting tiny amounts of chlorinated pesticides, but we will never know without long-term, independent human research"......"
:ohmygod: :dyinglaughing: :coffeecanuck: You're kidding me, right??? Is there another variation of the Chlorine atom I haven't heard about. Gotta go now....
Imagination
Board Meister
Posts: 398
Joined: Nov 28th, 2009, 10:28 pm

Re: Artificial Sweeteners

Post by Imagination »

What I find interesting when people are speaking about the dangers of artificial sweeteners is the dangers of natural sugars never seem to be done in a compare and contrast (remember the grade 5 way of doing business). For me it's not so much about what my Splenda or Aspartame does at all but how I can get something sweet with something other than sugar. As for long term effects...sheesh sugar is loaded with some of the most dire consequences yet no one compares those when speaking about what may or may not happen with the artificials as they nickel and dime the substances they are made from to death.

Sugar has so many down sides not the least of which are being insulin triggering, artery clogging, obesity producing, addicting, cancer tumour feeding, primary cause of hypoglycemia and type II diabetes (and all the risks that brings with it),and lets not forget basics like tooth decay. These are known and documented, no questions remain on these ones. Add in (for the ultra sensitive) contributing (if not a primary factor in) ADD, seizures, asthma, arthritis and many other conditions and you have a pretty concerning list. Many people also suffer the headaches, mood swings, and other side effects claimed as serious side effects of the artificials yet that doesn't seem to come up when people are pointing out the dangers of substitutes.

If sugar was given the same kind of the kind of attention by people when it comes to worries and warnings the way artificial sweeteners are reported, I wonder how things would stack up for people. I have come to regard it as poison, one I really like, but every time I have some I have to accept I am going to feel some negative effects now and later and that's not something I have to consider when I opt for an artificial sweetener in quite the same way. The only thing most folks have to worry about is if they eat too much of it at once (and it doesn't seem to be an issue with Aspartame or Splenda like it is with those containing xylitols or other ingredients) is that they will come out the other end in such a manner as to require plumbing very close by. Those are the kind of substitutes often found in diabetic/sugar free candy and such (where they have been slow to adopt Splenda) and are also toxic to pets if they ever ingest them so probably better to avoid those ones.

I find it almost laughable when someone notes my artificial sweetener isn't good for me when sugar has (directly) caused me all manner of health problems and many of them are instant and absolutely related (as I have learned by experience and blood tests). It's now also visibly apparent in our population and the health care system but the outcry is more of a peep on page 7. Had even 20% of the problems linked to sugar been linked to it's substitutes, the reaction would be swift and in all the headlines. Those things would have been off the shelves so fast it would make heads spin. Meanwhile no doctor has linked any specific issue to my artificial sweetener (they don't really promote it since they aren't so sure and but bottom line is the real worry seems only to be the suspicion it may still trigger an insulin reaction which to me is something I'll take over what I know for certain is going to happen when I have sugar).

Until people get clear that sugar is not just some natural product our bodies are happy to have and it starts to carry the same warnings and suspicion that are common with other sweeteners it's going to be hard for people to really decide what to do. The first tip off is believing it's okay as long as you don't have too much...really, same thing they say about the substitutes yet people would be in alarm state if the substitutes were added to all our foods the way sugar is. Meanwhile something has to turn around because they have conditioned the majority of people to have a real taste for sugars the past 50 years and it's going to be really hard to get ingestion of any sugar or sweetener down to what would be a reasonable level. It's basically pick your poison and for me I'm going with the one I have yet to find any problems with and I really don't care what the chemical composition of it is since there are lots of chemicals our body can deal with better than it can with sugars.
User avatar
UnknownResident
Generalissimo Postalot
Posts: 739
Joined: Mar 13th, 2010, 5:25 pm

Re: Artificial Sweeteners

Post by UnknownResident »

Imagination wrote:What I find interesting when people are speaking about the dangers of artificial sweeteners is the dangers of natural sugars never seem to be done in a compare and contrast (remember the grade 5 way of doing business). For me it's not so much about what my Splenda or Aspartame does at all but how I can get something sweet with something other than sugar. As for long term effects...sheesh sugar is loaded with some of the most dire consequences yet no one compares those when speaking about what may or may not happen with the artificials as they nickel and dime the substances they are made from to death.

Sugar has so many down sides not the least of which are being insulin triggering, artery clogging, obesity producing, addicting, cancer tumour feeding, primary cause of hypoglycemia and type II diabetes (and all the risks that brings with it),and lets not forget basics like tooth decay. These are known and documented, no questions remain on these ones. Add in (for the ultra sensitive) contributing (if not a primary factor in) ADD, seizures, asthma, arthritis and many other conditions and you have a pretty concerning list. Many people also suffer the headaches, mood swings, and other side effects claimed as serious side effects of the artificials yet that doesn't seem to come up when people are pointing out the dangers of substitutes.

If sugar was given the same kind of the kind of attention by people when it comes to worries and warnings the way artificial sweeteners are reported, I wonder how things would stack up for people. I have come to regard it as poison, one I really like, but every time I have some I have to accept I am going to feel some negative effects now and later and that's not something I have to consider when I opt for an artificial sweetener in quite the same way. The only thing most folks have to worry about is if they eat too much of it at once (and it doesn't seem to be an issue with Aspartame or Splenda like it is with those containing xylitols or other ingredients) is that they will come out the other end in such a manner as to require plumbing very close by. Those are the kind of substitutes often found in diabetic/sugar free candy and such (where they have been slow to adopt Splenda) and are also toxic to pets if they ever ingest them so probably better to avoid those ones.

I find it almost laughable when someone notes my artificial sweetener isn't good for me when sugar has (directly) caused me all manner of health problems and many of them are instant and absolutely related (as I have learned by experience and blood tests). It's now also visibly apparent in our population and the health care system but the outcry is more of a peep on page 7. Had even 20% of the problems linked to sugar been linked to it's substitutes, the reaction would be swift and in all the headlines. Those things would have been off the shelves so fast it would make heads spin. Meanwhile no doctor has linked any specific issue to my artificial sweetener (they don't really promote it since they aren't so sure and but bottom line is the real worry seems only to be the suspicion it may still trigger an insulin reaction which to me is something I'll take over what I know for certain is going to happen when I have sugar).

Until people get clear that sugar is not just some natural product our bodies are happy to have and it starts to carry the same warnings and suspicion that are common with other sweeteners it's going to be hard for people to really decide what to do. The first tip off is believing it's okay as long as you don't have too much...really, same thing they say about the substitutes yet people would be in alarm state if the substitutes were added to all our foods the way sugar is. Meanwhile something has to turn around because they have conditioned the majority of people to have a real taste for sugars the past 50 years and it's going to be really hard to get ingestion of any sugar or sweetener down to what would be a reasonable level. It's basically pick your poison and for me I'm going with the one I have yet to find any problems with and I really don't care what the chemical composition of it is since there are lots of chemicals our body can deal with better than it can with sugars.



My opinion fructose is a poison when consumed at the quantities we are. I'll get back to dirtrider when I'm home, cause it's going to be a long reply...
Imagination
Board Meister
Posts: 398
Joined: Nov 28th, 2009, 10:28 pm

Re: Artificial Sweeteners

Post by Imagination »

UnknownResident wrote:My opinion fructose is a poison when consumed at the quantities we are. ...


How about we add any 'ose' to that, as it's all sugar as our body sees it. Doesn't matter what comes before the 'ose', natural or not, it's sugar with the only difference being how long it takes to be converted by our body into glucose.
User avatar
justmyopinion
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3343
Joined: Dec 2nd, 2009, 9:45 am

Re: Artificial Sweeteners

Post by justmyopinion »

You guys posts are to long and you are confusing me.....please, should I use white sugar or Sweet'n Low in my coffee in the morning? Which is better for my body and easiest for it to deal with? SMALL answers please..... :bethecoffee:
User avatar
gardengirl
Walks on Forum Water
Posts: 13607
Joined: Mar 23rd, 2006, 1:01 pm

Re: Artificial Sweeteners

Post by gardengirl »

justmyopinion wrote:You guys posts are to long and you are confusing me.....please, should I use white sugar or Sweet'n Low in my coffee in the morning? Which is better for my body and easiest for it to deal with? SMALL answers please..... :bethecoffee:


It depends on your body. Most people with no significant health conditions can tolerate a fair amount of carbohydrates. It is the quality of those carbohydrates that can make a difference to your health.

Your body works best on things which are less refined. For example, the naturally occurring sugar in fresh fruit (not juice) is better than the white (refined) sugar you might add for flavouring.

What a lot of people don't understand is what a carbohydrate is.
The word SUGAR does not necessarily mean that white crystalline substance you add to your coffee.
The amount of sugar you consume in a day includes the refined sugars and sugar from other sources such as milk (lactose), fruit (fructose), starch (complex carbohydrates).

If you have health conditions such as diabetes or hypoglycemia, you need to be far more aware of the amount of carbohydrates you consume. Considering all the sources of carbohydrates, it is difficult to keep your numbers in line. You don't always taste sweetness when you are consuming carbohydrates, but it all turns into sugar in your body. Pasta, rice, bread all = sugar.
Life is a banquet and most poor suckers are starving to death.
GB17
Board Meister
Posts: 387
Joined: Jun 14th, 2009, 3:39 pm

Re: Artificial Sweeteners

Post by GB17 »

justmyopinion wrote:You guys posts are to long and you are confusing me.....please, should I use white sugar or Sweet'n Low in my coffee in the morning? Which is better for my body and easiest for it to deal with? SMALL answers please..... :bethecoffee:


I use honey in my :bethecoffee:
User avatar
Glacier
The Pilgrim
Posts: 35528
Joined: Jul 6th, 2008, 10:41 pm

Re: Artificial Sweeteners

Post by Glacier »

Imagination wrote:
UnknownResident wrote:My opinion fructose is a poison when consumed at the quantities we are. ...


How about we add any 'ose' to that, as it's all sugar as our body sees it. Doesn't matter what comes before the 'ose', natural or not, it's sugar with the only difference being how long it takes to be converted by our body into glucose.

Not true; all sugars and the form in which we consume them are not equal. First of all, fructose is worse for you than sucrose. Studies of have been conducted to prove this. Secondly, fructose is perfectly healthy when eaten in its natural state (fruit and veggies), but consuming sugar in the form of this highly processed high-fructose corn syrup crap reeks havoc on your body.

kccayenne wrote:Why not just recondition oneself to prefer naturally-occuring sugars?

=D>
"No one has the right to apologize for something they did not do, and no one has the right to accept an apology if the wrong was not done to them."
- Douglas Murray
User avatar
justmyopinion
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3343
Joined: Dec 2nd, 2009, 9:45 am

Re: Artificial Sweeteners

Post by justmyopinion »

I think I should just start drinking my coffee black :127:
Imagination
Board Meister
Posts: 398
Joined: Nov 28th, 2009, 10:28 pm

Re: Artificial Sweeteners

Post by Imagination »

Glacier wrote:
Imagination wrote:How about we add any 'ose' to that, as it's all sugar as our body sees it. Doesn't matter what comes before the 'ose', natural or not, it's sugar with the only difference being how long it takes to be converted by our body into glucose.

Not true; all sugars and the form in which we consume them are not equal. First of all, fructose is worse for you than sucrose. Studies of have been conducted to prove this. Secondly, fructose is perfectly healthy when eaten in its natural state (fruit and veggies), but consuming sugar in the form of this highly processed high-fructose corn syrup crap reeks havoc on your body.

kccayenne wrote:Why not just recondition oneself to prefer naturally-occuring sugars?

=D>


I guess it depends on your point of view and if you don't eat a lot of sugar (as you body sees it meaning starches etc.) you may be able to get away with eating some and then you can debate which are better or worse. To me, it makes no difference. It's like saying it's not as bad for me to slap you as it is to punch you and then get into punching doesn't hurt as bad if gloves are involved or you hit high or low. It's all pain, slapping or punching, fast or slow, gloves or not, used to it or not, and the bottom line is none of it acceptable if you want to avoid being in even a little pain.

There is no perfectly healthy form of sugar although there are some that when eaten with enough fiber or protein don't reek the same problems but the rule is still the same, it's all down to how much you have as only small quantities won't get you into trouble at some point. You can eat a lot of fruit and see what it does to your cholesterol readings, your weight, your blood sugars, etc. and so on as it will have the same impact as good ol' white sugar if you eat enough (and I am not talking weird quantities here but what some people actually consume on a daily basis just in fruit). What is really important is that when someone is aware they have problems with sugar, it's any sugar, any form. It's all bad, every last molecule of it is sugar when it comes down to it and that is the way your body sees it. How you body uses it very much depends on the form, what is eaten with it, and whether you eat more than nature ever intended (which was very little as nature never intended us to eat all the other forms we get from starches and fruit is not a year round food in most places on earth).
Imagination
Board Meister
Posts: 398
Joined: Nov 28th, 2009, 10:28 pm

Re: Artificial Sweeteners

Post by Imagination »

justmyopinion wrote:You guys posts are to long and you are confusing me.....please, should I use white sugar or Sweet'n Low in my coffee in the morning? Which is better for my body and easiest for it to deal with? SMALL answers please..... :bethecoffee:


There is no short answer other than it's ideal to avoid both and learn to go without the sweet. Otherwise you have to pay attention to your body and what it is telling you. If you rarely have anything sweet, a bit of sugar in your coffee won't matter much. If you add up all the sugar you eat all day, in all forms and know you have cholesterol or weight issues or any other sugar related problem or if you find you suffer side effects of artificial sweeteners, then you have to work those into the equation. It's very much an individual decision based on your own body and lifestyle.
User avatar
Glacier
The Pilgrim
Posts: 35528
Joined: Jul 6th, 2008, 10:41 pm

Re: Artificial Sweeteners

Post by Glacier »

Imagination wrote:There is no perfectly healthy form of sugar although there are some that when eaten with enough fiber or protein don't reek the same problems but the rule is still the same, it's all down to how much you have as only small quantities won't get you into trouble at some point. You can eat a lot of fruit and see what it does to your cholesterol readings, your weight, your blood sugars, etc. and so on as it will have the same impact as good ol' white sugar if you eat enough (and I am not talking weird quantities here but what some people actually consume on a daily basis just in fruit).

I am sorry, sir, but your assertions are incorrect. It seems you are not grasping the difference between absence and moderation. Sugar in moderation is good for you. Everything in moderation. Drinking too much water is bad for you, drinking too much coffee is bad for you, and eating too much fruit is bad for you.

Some forms of sugar are good for you. The benefits of honey in moderation are quite remarkable (prevents ulcers for example).
"No one has the right to apologize for something they did not do, and no one has the right to accept an apology if the wrong was not done to them."
- Douglas Murray

Return to “Health”