It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Dangers of Splenda and other Artificial Sweeteners!!!!

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2005 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Midnight fairy, you are being dishonest.

As the originator of this thread -- which, like all stuff here at ATS, is supposed to deny ignorance -- I think you have a moral obligation to at least pay lip service to the idea of rational discussion. Instead, you start off with an assumption thta Splenda and other artificial sweeteners are dangerous (which may or may not be true), and provide comments from only one side of the issue.

Moreover, when people like Nygdan come up with a detailed rebuttal of some of the claims, you refuse to respond to them. In other words, you seem to have an agenda here where you reply to things that you like and ignore comments from people whose views differ from yours.

Of course you have a right to do this; I am not saying you are a "troll" or anything like that.

But as far as I am concerned, your refusal -- or inability -- to even discuss issues that other people have brought up is intellectual dishonesty and fatally compromises your credibility as a researcher.




posted on May, 27 2005 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Splenda isn't just a 'chlorocarbon'. Its silly, and borderline fraudlent, for someone (who should know better, liek a 'dr') to claim that because many chlorocarbons are dangerous that therefore they all are dangerous.


Absolutely true. The claims that Splenda is a pesticide or a toxin like DDT, PCBs and Dioxin are patently false--and apparently part of a smear campaign being waged by none other than the Sugar Association. Big surprise.

McNeil Industries has initiated a lawsuit against the Sugar Association, keepers of TheTruthAboutSplenda.com, alledging that the information contained on the site is false and baseless.

It will be interesting to see if The Sugar Association can support their claims, which are similar to those that are on Mercola's site and have been spread all over the Internet. Although many of the claims being made about Splenda aren't even about Splenda--they are about aspartame. They are two completely different compounds. That's like saying that Vioxx is dangerous, so you should stop taking Tylenol.

I can also see why Mercola would have a problem with Splenda and the way it is embraced by low-carb dieters... considering that he is in the diet business himself. Although he should spend less time worrying about why the FDA approved Splenda, as it seems that his own products are on the FDA hit list.

Mercola's website is also cited by Quackwatch as one to be "avoided by persons seeking high-quality information on which to base a health-related decision."

It is also important to remember, as Nygdan pointed out, that any food, from Spinach to chicken to peanut butter, can be picked apart and found to kill you.

Considering that sugar is pretty bad for you--and there is certainly more evidence that sugar will kill you than there is about Splenda, I would say that the alarmist behavior is a bit over-the-top.

But if you are so worried about Splenda, don't use it. Stevia is a natural herb--and it's readily available at healthfood stores, although the FDA seems to have an issue with it. I think it tastes nasty, but some people seem to like it.



posted on May, 27 2005 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Concern over your health is one thing, but all of this marketing to the masses based on beauty is ridiculous. Up to my 40s I had clear smooth skin, low body fat and a good physique. I considered myself to be attractive. This was through healthy eating habits and exercise.

I am now in my 50s. I am wrinkled and somewhat overweight. It's called aging and we all get it. I refuse to subject my body to chemicals and surgery to maintain a youthful appearance. Too many people are obsessed with what they look like. I am not 20 and I refuse to buy into all of the media hype that tells me 20 is better than 50. Whether they are safe or not, I do not use sugar subsitutes.

And I still consider myself attractive.



posted on May, 27 2005 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Midnight fairy, you are being dishonest.

As the originator of this thread -- which, like all stuff here at ATS, is supposed to deny ignorance -- I think you have a moral obligation to at least pay lip service to the idea of rational discussion. Instead, you start off with an assumption thta Splenda and other artificial sweeteners are dangerous (which may or may not be true), and provide comments from only one side of the issue.

Moreover, when people like Nygdan come up with a detailed rebuttal of some of the claims, you refuse to respond to them. In other words, you seem to have an agenda here where you reply to things that you like and ignore comments from people whose views differ from yours.

Of course you have a right to do this; I am not saying you are a "troll" or anything like that.

But as far as I am concerned, your refusal -- or inability -- to even discuss issues that other people have brought up is intellectual dishonesty and fatally compromises your credibility as a researcher.

Just a little FYI offthestreet, he's calling Stevia an artificial sweetner, which is ridiculous..

This is Stevia...



And just because you don't know anybody who has problems with Olestra doesn't mean the plethora of medical studies that show Gastric Problems caused by Olestra are bunk. I'd say the reason that nobdy responded to nygdan's post is because it is complete bunk.

[edit on 27-5-2005 by twitchy]



posted on May, 27 2005 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Stevia is sucralose [edit: isn't it??].


No, stevia is not sucralose. The sweetener is extracted from the plant Stevia rebaudiana originating in South America. The chemicals found in the leaves (glycosides) taste sweet, but give no calories.

Sucralose is not found in nature, it is prapared in the lab. So these are two different things.



posted on May, 27 2005 @ 03:38 PM
link   

nobdy responded to nygdan's post is because it is complete bunk.


No.

The reason no one responded to Nygdan's post is because they don't want to deal with a post that contradicts what they want to believe.

For example, Nygdan says:


Splenda isn't just a 'chlorocarbon'. Its silly, and borderline fraudlent, for someone (who should know better, liek a 'dr') to claim that because many chlorocarbons are dangerous that therefore they all are dangerous.


Are you saying that Nygdan's comments about "some chlorocarbons equalling all chlorocarbons" being dangerous is "bunk"? A chlorocarbon a chemical compound containing carbon and chlorine, as carbon tetrachloride; or containing carbon, chlorine, and hydrogen, as chloroform. There are a lot of different chemicals that comprise carbon and chlorine, and some are poisonous and some aren't.

Saying that all chlorocarbons are poisonous is like saying that all compounds of sodium and chlorine are poisonous, because both sodium and chlorine are poisonous. But, of course, one common compound of those two poisons is table salt.

What Nygdan was saying is that it is wrong to generalize that all compounds are dangerous only because some of them are.

Why is that "bunk"?

Nygdan says:


Show us testing, in independant labs, that has been critically analysed, that demonstrates sucralose being dangerous.


Nygdan is not satisfied with anecdotal evidence, and no scientist is, either. Nygdan wants to see the results of real testing in real labs, and wants to see the approach taken so that he (and you, too) could ensure that there is no hidden agenda.

Why is that "bunk"?

Nygdan says:


I am aware of not a single study that demonstrates that normal usage of artificial sweeteners in humans 'causes cancer'.


Nygdan doesn't say that "there is no study which demonstrates that normal use of artificial sweeteners in humans causes cancer"; he says he isn't aware of such a study.

In other words, Nygdan is keeping an open mind to the possibility that there may really be such studies, but he simply isn't aware of them.

Why is that "bunk"?

I don't know how many of Nygdan's concerns can be answered by you and other believers that such stuff is poisonous. Maybe you can respond to his concerns, maybe you cannot.

But so far, you have refused to even attempt to answer his concerns.

That's what the "bunk" is, twitchy.

Nygdan may be correct or not, but he brings up some valid questions that you and your fellow believers refuse to answer.

That's not "research", twitchy; that's bunk.



posted on May, 27 2005 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Good points brought up, lmgnyc!! I see you've done some research.



Originally posted by lmgnyc
McNeil Industries has initiated a lawsuit against the Sugar Association, keepers of TheTruthAboutSplenda.com, alledging that the information contained on the site is false and baseless.


finally we get both sides of the story about slpenda




It will be interesting to see if The Sugar Association can support their claims, which are similar to those that are on Mercola's site and have been spread all over the Internet. Although many of the claims being made about Splenda aren't even about Splenda--they are about aspartame.


I agree, many people don't even know there is a difference between asparatame and sucralose



Mercola's website is also cited by Quackwatch as one to be "avoided by persons seeking high-quality information on which to base a health-related decision."


hmmm, interesting, good to know!



But if you are so worried about Splenda, don't use it. Stevia is a natural herb--and it's readily available at healthfood stores, although the FDA seems to have an issue with it. I think it tastes nasty, but some people seem to like it.


i still use my regular sugar, i try to avoid artificial sweeteners. they might not even be that dangerous as all these websites claim, but it is not possible to predict for sure.... it needs more time to show side-effects in the longrun. Better safe than sorry, though.



posted on May, 28 2005 @ 03:25 AM
link   
Here is a basic rule of thumb that will hopefully help save some folks some unnecessary problems.

If it's not real and doesn't belong in the body, then you might want to reconsider consuming it.

Troy



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 07:01 PM
link   
What is really strange is that some artificial sweeteners actually cause reactions so the person knows it isn't something they should use and members in the same family use them for 25+ years with no ill effects....So everyone has different reactions...just like some people are allergic to peanuts...very small percentage actually. However Aspartame has around a 20% rateof giving people reactions they notice right off the bat, I've heard..could go research that on the net to back up my statement if you want. ....

Edit: spelling

[edit on 6/1/2005 by mercury19]



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 08:13 PM
link   
Here is the simple fact. We have strayed away from real food, and we now have the flavor enhanced, preservative ridden bag of chips. Why even do this, what good really comes of it?

I'm not exactly sure why these substances are acceptable as food by the FDA? Your body doesn't know what to do with some of this stuff, except maybe try to pass it through, if it isn't stored somewhere in the body first. So there is no mystery here. Why expect your body to know what to do whith fake sugar? This stuff should be placed over in the toy department with the plastic toys, next to the fake machine guns.

Yes, food additive toxins can build up in your body over time, really. You might not notice the difference untill you start weening yourself of it though, and it starts getting flushed out of your system. Then you might notice the odd taste that Doritos have. Or you might be rewardedd with some nice physical improvements in your body. Have you noticed if someone (or you) have quit smoking for some time, you finally notice how bad the smoke actually tasted or smelled? You were so immersed in the smoking that you couldn't really see its effects anymore. This is part of the reason why there are body cleansing programs, and supplements. To rid your body of the toxins.

Troy



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 09:31 PM
link   
If they're low cal sugar substitutes, then why are north americans getting fatter? What if these things really alter brain chem, to make people less critical, and more compliant?



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 09:37 PM
link   
I believe Aspartame may make you want carbs and/or sweets even more. A family member put on weight while drinking diet soda.

troy

[edit on 1-6-2005 by cybertroy]



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 08:05 AM
link   
That reminds me of a funny story someone told me..Back in the 60's when they came out with Metrical...his overweight friend gained weight on it because he thought all he had to do was just drink it and eat as usual....it was funny when he told me...had ta be there



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 09:36 AM
link   
For lots of people the use of sugar substitutes isn't a vanity issue as some posters here stridently assert. People with diabetes and other elevated blood sugar disorders have a choice of no sweeteners in their diet or substitutes. For people with these metabolic disorders the continued use of the benevolent sugar will lead to heart disease, blindness, circulatory disease, amputation and kidney failure ... oh, and death. Epidemiological research suggests that the populations' increased consumption of sugar has led to the increased incidence of diabetes.

How does that go? The simple truth is usually neither?



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by cybertroy
Here is a basic rule of thumb that will hopefully help save some folks some unnecessary problems.

If it's not real and doesn't belong in the body, then you might want to reconsider consuming it.

Troy


Does that include life-saving drugs, too? Most aren't "natural", and many don't resemble anything found in the human body.

It's a little too vague, non?



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 01:44 PM
link   
None of us need sweeteners. Why does natural whole food need to be sweetened? When sugar was first imported in Europe it was kept under lock and key, sold for enormous amounts, and treated like a drug. Even then we knew how powerfully addictive a refined sweetener can be. If we were not trained on sugar, force fed an average of 150 grams of it daily by the food industry (and that's not counting the untold harm of artificial sweeteners).

At a temperature of 86 degrees the wood alcohol in Aspartame converts to formaldehyde and then to formic acid which then causes metabolic acidosis. This benefits no one. See my blog: nutrasweet.blogspot.com...

Why, when we have a choice of drinking fresh pure water, even at this point mined from deep ice frozen since before the birth of the industrial revolution and all it's pollutants, would we choose to drink sweet, chemically flavored soda water? Have some herbal tea. Get a juicer, make some veggie juices. Re-train your body to understand how food really tastes. And you with the eight years of medical school, have you ever thought about who funds and sets the curriculum for those schools? I sure have, I'm a nutritionist.

A balanced healthy body does not crave sweets of any kind.



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 02:03 PM
link   
I was almost 90 lbs overweight. (medication I had been on made me gain weight like crazy, 80lbs in one year) I couldn't seem to successfully diet. I can't STAND the aftertaste of most artificial sweeteners.

I know the dangers of being overweight. I had some problems with my knees and with my asthma. Splenda was a blessing for me. No aftertaste. Just substituting sugar with Splenda and working from there, I have lost 42 lbs in 5 months. Half-way to my goal weight.

Now, my knees don't bother me and my asthma is much MUCH better. So I no longer have to take meds for the knees and rarely use asthma medication. When I get to my goal weight, I can return to normal eating and there you have it. Problems reported with the use of most artificial sweeteners tend to be from prolonged, long term use, as well as a pre-disposition.

So, what is worse? The effects of overweight, or the temporary effect of a sweetener?



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 11:24 PM
link   
Tinkleflower,

Life-saving drugs. Yes there might be exceptions. Some life savers can also be natural.

But still bombarding your body with fake crud generally isn't good. No mysteries here.

Troy



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Exactly, Troy.

And let's not forget that "natural" doesn't mean "safe", either.

There are just so many natural substances that are harmful to humans....though you're right in saying that as a general guide, "natural" foods and substances are better for us than chemically-enhanced products.

I just like to clarify - it's something I hear a lot (working in the pharma industry as I did for so bloomin' long), and it bears repeating:

"Natural" does not automatically mean "safe".



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 10:29 PM
link   
No argument, there are toxic natural substances for sure.

For sure I want to be numbed if my teeth are getting drilled on. I make some exceptions when I feel it necessary.

But I'll take my vitamin and whole food store any day over a prescription. There isn't even a measly Tylenol in my medicine cabinet.

I started feeling a good bit better when I stripped a lot of the additives and stuff from my diet. And I don't feel like I'm dying of thirst like I was before. I think those Nitrates or Nitrites in meats had something to do with it.

The funny thing is, I'm drinking whole milk, eating spoons of mayonaise, and I'm trimmer than I was before. I'm not doing the "low fat" thing. I'm doing the "real food" thing. I did also cut out a lot of bread and carbs from my diet, plus cutting out a lot of the refined sugar.

Troy



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join