Artificial Sweeteners

Health, well-being, medicine, aging.
User avatar
fluffy
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 24724
Joined: Jun 1st, 2006, 5:42 pm

Re: Artificial Sweeteners

Post by fluffy »

I'd like to chime in here. Glucose is the fuel that drives the body. We can't live without it. As has been said, the key is moderation. The preferred source of glucose for those with any form of sugar sensitivity is complex carbohydrates (whole grain products and vegetables) as they are slower to convert to glucose and thus enter the bloodstream more slowly. Simple sugars enter the bloodstream much more quickly, raising blood glucose levels until the body can burn it off. Over consumption of simple sugars and/or a sedentary lifestyle will lead to chronically high blood glucose levels and that where the trouble starts.
I just want some credible articles to back up my conspiracy theory but I can't find any. Must be censorship.
Imagination
Board Meister
Posts: 398
Joined: Nov 28th, 2009, 10:28 pm

Re: Artificial Sweeteners

Post by Imagination »

Glacier wrote:
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).


You might argue some aspects of sugar as beneficial (I would argue you could find the same benefits without the sugars) but that doesn't mean they are to be regarded as good for you. They are something we like and enjoy and allow ourselves to have as a pleasure but never thinking it's the best choice ultimately for health.

I won't get into any debate about ulcers or sore throats because anyone who is finding their body has crashed in one way or another and can't take sugar finds other ways to deal with any issue you can say sugar cures. Meanwhile to assure some clarity, I bolded the part of my post that you apparently missed and I also stated in other posts that it is a matter of how much we are consuming. I totally grasp the difference between absence and moderation (which you'd have to define because what you call moderation could be deadly for someone else and yet again could be regarded as abstinence by another. No way to know how you are defining it.). I could also mention that it's all down to what you consider healthy as using your theory a moderate use of cigarettes is okay or just a little heroin doesn't cause issues (and those things don't really when done in moderation and a lot of people will tell you there are a lot of benefits or they wouldn't be addicted...just like sugar. It's just when people ingest too much it gets dire, but no one would say those things were healthy given all we now know. Same goes for sugar but the public is not aware at all thanks to the politics that is behind it all. The game is those who feel health is surviving vs those who see it as thriving so a lot of this is nickel and dimeing in my book).

Just look back at my posts as I have not said people shouldn't have any if it doesn't bother them or they aren't eating a lot (see where I advised people to check where their sugar is coming from vs whether adding a tsp to a cup of coffee is a big deal or not). You can argue honey or anything else all you want, but you body sees it as sugar no matter what form you ingest and if you ingest very much you body is going to react negatively. Honey vs white sugar is like saying menthols are better than regular cigs. It's all sugar and sugar is sugar and our bodies are not equipped to handle all we are eating these days. It can also be argued that fruit has a lot of good nutrients and I don't dispute that at all, but people need to be aware they are eating sugar along with those nutrients (the same as they would having it added to meat or dairy or coffee or any other food) and what that means if also eating a lot of starches and sugars (any form) in a daily total and how fast their own bodies are reacting. The message being that added sugars (like in coffee) are just the tip of the sugar iceberg so it's probably better to look to other sources for reducing sugars than what goes in a cup of coffee because in the grand total, it's often minuscule compared to a can of pop or a banana when you add up all the sugar eaten in a day.

Just for the sake of conversation here's some stuff from a site I just googled that seems to sum things up nicely. For those who are interested it also has a nice list of all the physical issues sugar has been linked to (and even though I have no idea who is behind the site it matches all the reliable sources I do know) which is why I think it's so funny to see the concerns with artificial sweeteners being all that most people are concerned with when it comes to topics like this. If that list of illnesses appeared on every sugar containing product the public would be rebelling much more than to the effects of artificial sweeteners. http://www.healingdaily.com/detoxification-diet/sugar.htm

"The average American consumes an astounding 2-3 pounds of sugar each week...
In the last 20 years, we have increased sugar consumption in the U.S. 26 pounds to 135 lbs. of sugar per person per year! Prior to the turn of this century (1887-1890), the average consumption was only 5 lbs. per person per year! Cardiovascular disease and cancer was virtually unknown in the early 1900's....
Although honey is a natural sweetener, it is considered a refined sugar because 96% of dry matter are simple sugars: fructose, glucose and sucrose. It is little wonder that the honey bear is the only animal found in nature with a problem with tooth-decay (honey decays teeth faster than table sugar). Honey has the highest calorie content of all sugars with 65 calories/tablespoon, compared to the 48 calories/tablespoon found in table sugar. The increased calories are bound to cause increased blood serum fatty acids, as well as weight gain, on top of the risk of more cavities. ..."


It might also be noted that prior to the industrial revolution sugar was so rare even royalty only got a few pounds a year so our bodies are just not built for how much we are ingesting in any of it's forms now including honey. Also there was no term for a heart attack until the 1920's or so because it was so rare. Go figure how sugar has stayed off the radar so long...

Oh FYI, I am not a sir. Just don't have the primary part to come under that term.
Imagination
Board Meister
Posts: 398
Joined: Nov 28th, 2009, 10:28 pm

Re: Artificial Sweeteners

Post by Imagination »

-fluffy- wrote:...The preferred source of glucose for those with any form of sugar sensitivity is complex carbohydrates (whole grain products and vegetables) as they are slower to convert to glucose and thus enter the bloodstream more slowly. Simple sugars enter the bloodstream much more quickly, raising blood glucose levels until the body can burn it off....


There is a little more to it for those who are sugar sensitive (and that really does vary as anyone who experiences it can tell you even within the same person depending on other things that are going on) so for those who are interested take a look at the glycemic index and now the glycemic load (a more recent addition). One site that explains a bit is http://www.mendosa.com/gilists.htm. There are many sites/books/lists and they do vary in their numbers with the most respected sources being the Canadian and Australian ones who have been leading this research now for over 2 decades.

This is where the rubber meets the road and when you need to really pay attention to your own body as we are individuals with different metabolisms, lifestyles, etc. It makes a difference if a person has to adjust because of insulin issues (the primary thrust as it is insulin that drives obesity, heart disease, type II diabetes among other things) and how far off their insulin is. For instance most people can stay with foods that rank under about 70 on the GI and be really well (the higher foods being saved for those times of moderate consumption).Things like sugar and white bread rank 100 on the scale while meats/proteins are 0. The GI also illustrates how just the method of cooking or eating raw can effect those sugars in food as well to help people make better choices.

So for someone like me whose body is very sensitive, I now know more specifically that if I want to feel my best I have to stay under 50 on the GI and I need to limit those to about 30 grams (in carbs) only a day. That means a lot of above ground veggies (excluding corn) and proteins for me where some others who have no body fat to provide the energy they need can eat whole grains and higher sugar fruits with no issues at all (although they still risk some of the long term effects like cardiovascular problems). Using the glycemic load, I can make sure that when I do go with something higher on the GI, I only eat it with the things on the list that will slow down that conversion a bit. Meanwhile, I also keep in mind all the side effects of that sugar as no matter how slowly it burns, it can still do it's damage long term.

The list does help people to understand why some meals are just killer and how to balance things instead of thinking potato, corn, peas are veggies so must be okay to all eat at once and then find themselves in a sugar stupor and wondering how that happened. It also comes into play with people who are suffering some illnesses as it's easier to keep them on the things by the GI than having them trying to figure out what a doctor is saying when they say to just eat healthy as that is just too vague in our confused world of what defines healthy food.

What they are finding in many studies (depending on who you believe) is that even high performance athletes don't need to ingest all the glucose they once thought they did as their bodies will produce what they need for energy from proteins and other sources that the body will process as it needs when simple sugars (the carb loading) aren't available.
User avatar
Bsuds
The Wagon Master
Posts: 51643
Joined: Apr 21st, 2005, 10:46 am

Re: Artificial Sweeteners

Post by Bsuds »

Interesting info, thanks for that.
I might look normal but believe me, I talk to animals and wait for them to reply.
User avatar
UnknownResident
Generalissimo Postalot
Posts: 739
Joined: Mar 13th, 2010, 5:25 pm

Re: Artificial Sweeteners

Post by UnknownResident »

I was talking about artificial sweeteners today and I remembered this about this thread so I decided to bring it back from the dead.

My view from the get go was that artificial sweeteners are a bad idea, and will push your health in the wrong direction, and that view has not changed.

I said before, Splenda contains chloride, and I a got a very umm, opinionated response...

dirtrider wrote:
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....


Different variations of chlorine? Well you could say that. dirtrider pretty much summed up Splenda's argument "there's chloride in lots of natural foods". It's true. Here's the difference - in natural foods the chloride is connected to the foods in an ionic bond. For example the chloride is table salt easily dissociates when put into water. The chloride in Splenda is attached in a covalent bond, that means it will not dissociate. In fact there are no covalent chloride bonds to organic compounds (meaning carbon compounds found in nature). The only ones we have are man-made compounds. I believe I posted some of the other synthetic covalently bond carbon compounds that we've made... DDT, PCBs, Agent Orange. Good things you want to eat right? I think not.

On the topic of the covalent chloride bond. Do you wonder why Splenda has no calories? You're body has no way to break this stuff down, we don't have enzymes for it, why would it right? We've never had to break anything like this down before. So when you consume it, you hopefully digest it and eliminate it. But there's a concern that a percentage of Splenda is actually absorbed. And despite what some people might want to think, that percentage is absorbed by your fat tissue. That's right Splenda is lipid soluble. As result it's in your body for long amounts of time. The problem is there's never been long term studies done on just what the impacts of this are, and most of the safety studies that have been done have been very short term (a few days maybe) and most have been funded by the company that sells Splenda.
dirtrider
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3178
Joined: May 18th, 2005, 3:46 pm

Re: Artificial Sweeteners

Post by dirtrider »

UnknownResident wrote:I was talking about artificial sweeteners today and I remembered this about this thread so I decided to bring it back from the dead.



Ahh....you're back. I've been waiting a while for you to get back home........Before we start this discussion, I'd like to clarify some points you've already made.....I'll start with this one:


UnknownResident wrote:
Do you even know what splenda is? Splenda is the product of insecticide research. Here's how you make splenda, you drop the hydrogen out of a sugar molecule and you add chlorine. Chlorine is a class one carcinogen (cancer causer). Chlorine, doesn't exist in it's free form anywhere in nature, you have to artificial make it. Anyways they add this chlorine to a sugar molecule and force it to bond with carbon, which makes whats called a chlorocarbon, which is toxic. The carbon acts as a delivery system to deliver that chlorine into the cells. That's why it works as an insecticide .


I did some research and wondered if this was true? I read that this rumour started with an article by Burkhard Bilger of the New Yorker May 22, 2006 article titled "The Search for Sweet". I'm not a suscriber so I'm not sure what he wrote. If he wrote that sucrlose was a product of insecticide research, I would seriously question his credibility about the other articles he writes. It's more believeable that Leslie Hough and Shashikant Phadnis of the King's College discovered sucralose trying to halogenate sucrose molecules for a food company called Tate and Lyle. Suralose is structurally very similar to sucrose and does not look like DDT at all. I hardly doubt he would be willing to "taste" anything if Phadnis was working with DDT.

".....In the 1960s, Tate & Lyle Sweeteners Division, a division of the Tate & Lyle Company, was investigating the use of sugar in nontraditional areas. As part of this initiative, a 1989 collaborative study was undertaken at Queen Elizabeth College, University of London (Knight, 1994), which resulted in the 1989 discovery of a compound that was eventually called sucralose. Sucralose was the first non-calorie sweetener made from sugar, or natural sucrose....."


http://www.kon.org/urc/frank.html

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

UnknownResident wrote:
UnknownResident wrote:
"......Then you have sucralose (splenda) the only chlorocarbon ever used for human consumption. How long before we figure out that it's toxic? You're eating a chemical....."


Different variations of chlorine? Well you could say that. dirtrider pretty much summed up Splenda's argument "there's chloride in lots of natural foods". It's true. Here's the difference - in natural foods the chloride is connected to the foods in an ionic bond. For example the chloride is table salt easily dissociates when put into water. The chloride in Splenda is attached in a covalent bond, that means it will not dissociate. In fact there are no covalent chloride bonds to organic compounds (meaning carbon compounds found in nature). The only ones we have are man-made compounds. I believe I posted some of the other synthetic covalently bond carbon compounds that we've made... DDT, PCBs, Agent Orange. Good things you want to eat right? I think not.


I think we need to do a quick Chemistry lesson. There are 3 Primary bonding characteristics of atoms. They are ionic, covalent and metallic. If we ignore the inert gases, we then are left with metal and non-metal atoms. When the bonding are between 2 metallic atoms....they are naturally called metallic bonding. Bonding between metal with non-metal atoms are in ionic bond.....between non-metals it's called covalent bonding. Of course there are exceptions but this is the general rule.....Another general rule of thumb is that ionic bonds are inorganic in nature and covalent bonds for organic compounds.
As far as the stregth of the bonding between ionic and covalent......it all depends on the compound. As far as Chlorine is concerned there is only one chlorine atom with an atomic number of 17 but there are 24 isotopes and 2 isomers with an atomic mass between 28 and 51.....but this isn't what you meant is it?

I think you are wrong when you say that there are no naturally occuring organochlorines..... only man-made ones. Here you can read thses links and determine if this is what you meant.

http://www.eurochlor.org/upload/documen ... ment56.pdf

http://www.eurochlor.org/index.asp?page=97

I'll have to comment on your last paragraph later but I'm pretty sure scuralose is not at all lipophyllic.....I'll have to finish this up later but feel free to comment on what I wrote so far.

Return to “Health”