Splenda...is it good or bad?
Posted 19 June 2008 - 01:45 PM
| Originally Posted by lambert13 |
I like the taste of it better than sugar.
I figure the chemicals might keep me looking young.
You're screwed either way it seems. Sugar is not good for you, Splenda is not good for you. Screw it.
Posted 19 June 2008 - 01:46 PM
Posted 19 June 2008 - 02:16 PM
FYI...Splenda isn't bad.
Article from the Mayo clinic on sweeteners. The "acceptable daily intake" is only 5 mg per kg of body weight (1kg = 2.2. lbs).
Artificial sweeteners: A safe alternative to sugar - MayoClinic.com
With respect to the "dangerous" nature of organochlorides, a simple internet search reveals some work being done at Dartmouth College by Dr. Gribble (http://http://www.eu...dex.asp?page=97). An excerpt:
More than 3,100 organohalogen chemicals are produced by living organisms and more than 1,800 of these contain chlorine as an innate part of their molecular structure.
These chlorinated compounds are biosynthesized by marine organisms (sponges, corals, tunicates, seaweeds, sea slugs, bryozoans, etc.), plants, trees, fungi, lichens, bacteria, fresh water algae, insects, a few amphibians, and some mammals, including humans.
Ever have a seaweed wrap on a piece of sushi? Eaten a fish that eats ocean plants? You just ingested dangerousorganohalogens!! *gasp*
The statement about the material disassociating in hot solutions and conditions and the molecules overall stability is directly refuted in the following reference: "Daniel JW, Renwick AG, Roberts A, Sims J. The metabolic fate of sucralose in rats. Food Chem Tox. 2000;38(S2): S115-S121."
References from the FDA (based on 110 different studies):
FDA Talk Paper: FDA APPROVES NEW HIGH-INTENSITY SWEETENER SUCRALOSE
From the EU, which as a group, is extremely sensitive to issues regarding health and environment, much more conservative in this area than most other governments:
"There is adequate evidence, [for sucralose], that there are no concerns about mutagenicity, carcinogenicity, development or reproductive toxicity." http://ec.europa.eu/...cf/out68_en.pdf
Lots of good info on Wikipedia on Safety of Sucralose.
Bottom line. A "chemical" is not always a bad thing. Water is a "chemical", just because a molecule is synthesized does not automatically make it harmful. Many man-made molecules make our lives much better today. As with all things we ingest, best done in moderation. Because we are a litigious society studies like the ones above have been performed to show that these molecules are safe for humans. To be honest most things you feed a rat in large quantities will cause it problems. Same is true for humans. I wouldn't eat a box of splenda, nor would I eat the equivalent amount of sugar, or salt, or garlic (ok maybe garlic), but I will have a splenda in my coffee, or a glass of diet ice tea. I will also drink 8 glasses of water a day. All things in moderation.
Posted 19 June 2008 - 02:19 PM
| Originally Posted by jean-marcus |
oh no... dont get me started on how unhealthy the low carb diet is ;
Posted 19 June 2008 - 02:22 PM
Posted 19 June 2008 - 03:19 PM
| Originally Posted by Just Martha |
Low carb is only as unhealthy as you make it. What's wrong with cutting out bad carbs (white rice, white bread, flour, sugar, pasta, etc) and replacing it with more veggies and LEAN meats? If all you eat is red meat then it's going to be unhealthy....you have to make sure you get your veggies and fruits (later) in!
Posted 19 June 2008 - 03:31 PM
| Originally Posted by Yari |
Here is his statment:
What about dangerous chlorinated species such as sodium chloride.....aka salt.
Beyond that I'd have to do some research into the process, how strongly bound these chlorides are bound to backbone. The other species discussed are highly polar, which makes them more toxic. If the chlorinated sugar molecule is symmetrical, it is much less polar, and therefore less likely to be toxic. Plus I would think the FDA would have something to say about a new material on the market such as this. Just guessing.....
I'm convinced no one knows what is really bad for us. It seems like there are an awful lot of conflicting ideas out there that pretty much spread the message- damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Ideally, I'm suppose to limit my sugar intake but I will use Splenda (because I think it's the best tasting artificial sweenter) in my coffee or iced tea.
Posted 19 June 2008 - 03:40 PM
| Originally Posted by jean-marcus |
oh nothing wrong with that at all. i dont really eat white bread or all that... i know there are good and bad carbs.. just soon as people say the low or no carb diet they are talkin that pesky atkins thing... the south beach is a much better hcoice...
Agreed. Plus people just don't know how to add in more veggies and fruits and that makes it unhealthy.
Posted 19 June 2008 - 04:21 PM
| Originally Posted by LC_Rachel |
Yari- I hope he doesn't always talk like that. I'd have to have a bottle of wine a night to keep up. LOL
but I'm glad to read an expert's opinion, I preffer splenda than sugar and I will continue taking it..
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users