Ideal Protein Diet - Interesting article on sweeteners




View Full Version : Interesting article on sweeteners


sanaroph
05-14-2012, 09:26 PM
4 best and 3 worst sweeteners (http://shine.yahoo.com/at-home/4-best-3-worst-sweeteners-kitchen-141100677.html)

The Best:

Stevia
Sugar alcohols
Honey (I recommend Manuka honey, or raw honey in very small quantities)
Pure glucose

The Worst:

Aspartame
Agave (which I would expand to include all sources of fructose)
Sucralose (Splenda)

Only two human trials on sucralose were completed and published prior to the FDA approving Splenda for human consumption, and these two trials included a total of just 36 human subjects. Worse yet, the longest running trial lasted only four days, and looked at sucralose in relation to tooth decay, not human tolerance. As for determining the absorption of Splenda into the human body, a mere eight men were studied.

Based on that singular human study, the FDA allowed the findings to be generalized as being representative of and regarded as "safe" for the entire human population!


Well there goes the Mio that I just started drinking. Guess I will go back to putting lime in my water :(


Fruit Serving Size Grams of Fructose
Limes 1 medium 0
Lemons 1 medium 0.6


kaplods
05-14-2012, 10:33 PM
The quote is factually untrue as well as exceedingly misleading. While it is possible (and just possible, I wouldn't bet money on it) that there may have been only two human trials in the USA, I WOULD be willing to bet a substantial amount of money (if I had a substantial amount of money to wager - unfortunately I don't) that there were many human studies before the FDA approved Sucralose (they just may not have been in the USA).

In the five minutes I was willing to spend on "research," I was able to verify that the FDA approved Splenda SEVEN YEARS after it had been approved in Canada FIVE YEARS after it was approved in Australia, TWO YEARS after it was approved in New Zealand, and it has since been approved in over 80 countries. It seems incredibly unlikely that Canada, Australia, and New Zealand hadn't done human trials before approving it in their own countries (possible, I suppose - but not very likely).



As I said, I wouldn't bet money that there are only two USA studies, but I wouldn't be very concerned if there were if instead the research was done in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and (where sucralose was approved first, and these aren't backwoods nations. There may also be research from other countries respected in the scientific community.

I find it very difficult to believe that by 1998 when the FDA approved sucralose (when Canada had been using sucralose for seven years) that there had only been two long-term studies completed. If I ever end up with an afternoon with absolutely nothing better to do, I might search for some actual studies to disprove the quote. And I certainly encourage anyone with more free time than I have to do a bit of searching, and I bet within a few days we'll have citations listed here for many, many more than two human studies and study terms of longer than four days. (Big Hint: start looking in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand where sucralose was approved before the FDA approved it in the USA).

JoesHotWife
05-14-2012, 11:29 PM
Quote from Medecine.net: The most misunderstood fact about sucralose is that it is nothing like sugar even though the marketing implies that it is. Sucralose was actually discovered while trying to create a new insecticide. It may have started out as sugar, but the final product is anything but sugar. According to the book Sweet Deception, sucralose is made when sugar is treated with trityl chloride, acetic anhydride, hydrogen chlorine, thionyl chloride, and methanol in the presence of dimethylformamide, 4-methylmorpholine, toluene, methyl isobutyl ketone, acetic acid, benzyltriethlyammonium chloride, and sodium methoxide, making it unlike anything found in nature. If you read the fine print on the Splenda web site, it states that "although sucralose has a structure like sugar and a sugar-like taste, it is not natural."


Kaypix
05-14-2012, 11:49 PM
So is natural good or bad then?

kaplods
05-15-2012, 12:01 AM
Sucralose was actually discovered while trying to create a new insecticide.

Uhhh, NOPE!

Sucralose was actually discovered by researchers working for a Brittish sugar refinery. A company that produces sugar and food additives (no insecticides before or since the Splenda discovery that I could find - but hey if anyone does find any evidence that the company also makes insecticides, please post verifiable evidence. It surely would be awesomely ironic if it were true).

... but really, which is more likely - researchers at a food additive company discovering a new food additive while trying to create a new food additive - or food additive researchers deciding to create an insecticide (for a food additive company which doesn't produce insecticides?) and just by happenstance accidentally discovering a (wait for it)

food additive?

Geez, it seems that the stranger the rumor, the more likely people are to believe it's true.

kaplods
05-15-2012, 12:45 AM
So is natural good or bad then?

Depends entirely on the substance and the situation.

There are many natural substances like hemlock, bella donna, ammonia (all you have to do to make ammonia is let urine sit until it breaks down) that are or can be poisonous.

And many unnatural substances (like many disinfectants, antibiotics, vaccines and other medications) that can be quite beneficial.

Foxglove? Natural, but poisonous. Can be used as a heart medication, but digitalis (unnatural, but derived or modeled after the component in foxglove) makes a better medication because the dose can be standardized. With foxglove, the active ingredient is difficult to standardize so getting the dosage right is very tricky (and potentially fatal).

Also, the objective danger from food additives is much lower than for environmental toxins, yet people are more concerned about food additives than environmental toxins, because the perceived risk is higher with ingestibles but the ACTUAL risk and harm is much higher with ingredients in cosmetics, fragrances, and household cleaners.

It's ironic that in general, more people are more likely to avoid aspartame and carbonated beverages, than ingredients in shampoos, cleaners, fragrances, fabric softeners, and cosmetics which are well known to cause or contribute to cancers, birth defects, respiratory illness, autoimmune diseases, skin irritation....

And more people die every year from the direct result of "natural" dietary supplements (especially natural stimulants used for weight loss) than can be indirectly or remotely attributed to carbonated water and artificial sweeteners.

galpal445
05-15-2012, 11:30 AM
Depends entirely on the substance and the situation.

And more people die every year from the direct result of "natural" dietary supplements (especially natural stimulants used for weight loss) than can be indirectly or remotely attributed to carbonated water and artificial sweeteners.

Thank you so much KAPLODS for being a voice of reason.

I get so upset when folks find this type of information on the internet and assume it is truth and then spread that information without actually verifying it in a responsible manner. We cannot just blindly accept everything we are told, especially when there is so much misinformation out there.

Here is a link to what Michael P. Ciell, Clinical Director at Ideal Protein has to say about Sucralose. Just click on the "Sucralose" link.
http://www.ihpweightloss.com/index_files/Page345.htm

JoesHotWife
05-15-2012, 02:49 PM
Everyone is free to believe what they want. The information is out there if one takes the time to do the research and is open to the fact that sometimes people lie to us for profit. FOR ME, the bottom line is if nature made it and man didn’t fool with it (i.e. spray it to kill something or rearrange its molecules to do something nature never intended), it is likely a good food choice. In my opinion, the entire obesity issue is due to man fooling with the food supply. Hydrogenating oils to make them shelf stable, creating high fructose corn syrup to make things sweeter (and cheaper), removing the germ from wheat then having to enrich it to make it have food value, genetically modifying seeds so they can be sprayed with Roundup and won’t die… Our bodies were not designed to deal with these types of foods and chemicals. If we were eating fresh natural products, none of us would have a weight issue. Nothing in this world happens without a consequence. It is up to each person to discover, for themselves, what they believe the truth is and then to decide if the risks outweigh the benefits. My need to reduce my weight, outweighed the risk from the use of artificial sweeteners while on IP. I choose to use stevia if I need additional sweetness in things, and do not plan to be on IP longer than necessary. This is MY choice based on the research I have done and my beliefs. As I said, each person must decide what is right for them.

I have no problem if you disagree with me. You have YOUR opinion. Your opinion is valuable, just as mine is, but if you choose to disagree, please do so respectfully. None of us need to be attacked for expressing a concern over using a CHEMICAL in our food or for sharing websites and quotes with a point of view that differs from yours.

CassiR
05-15-2012, 03:13 PM
Everyone is free to believe what they want. The information is out there if one takes the time to do the research and is open to the fact that sometimes people lie to us for profit. FOR ME, the bottom line is if nature made it and man didnít fool with it (i.e. spray it to kill something or rearrange its molecules to do something nature never intended), it is likely a good food choice. In my opinion, the entire obesity issue is due to man fooling with the food supply. Hydrogenating oils to make them shelf stable, creating high fructose corn syrup to make things sweeter (and cheaper), removing the germ from wheat then having to enrich it to make it have food value, genetically modifying seeds so they can be sprayed with Roundup and wonít dieÖ Our bodies were not designed to deal with these types of foods and chemicals. If we were eating fresh natural products, none of us would have a weight issue. Nothing in this world happens without a consequence. It is up to each person to discover, for themselves, what they believe the truth is and then to decide if the risks outweigh the benefits. My need to reduce my weight, outweighed the risk from the use of artificial sweeteners while on IP. I choose to use stevia if I need additional sweetness in things, and do not plan to be on IP longer than necessary. This is MY choice based on the research I have done and my beliefs. As I said, each person must decide what is right for them.

I have no problem if you disagree with me. You have YOUR opinion. Your opinion is valuable, just as mine is, but if you choose to disagree, please do so respectfully. None of us need to be attacked for expressing a concern over using a CHEMICAL in our food or for sharing websites and quotes with a point of view that differs from yours.

Have you read Lean Secrets by Brenda Turner? She talks about this topic intensely and firmly believes that pesticides/chemicals that people with lab coats put into our food causes obesity. It's not far fetched. Our liver's are not equipped to handle detoxing all these chemicals we are putting into our bodies and so our metabolism and hormones are screwed. It's so true. A clean diet with no chemicals/pesticides is the best way to get lean. Our bodies were never equipped to handle this stuff and our metabolisms and hormones are proof of that! Good points, Joe'shotwife.

lovesouthbeach
05-15-2012, 03:31 PM
I did some research I think sweeteners are ok to use. I hope so its in everything I drink pretty well, my coke zero and so on =/

Momto2cs
05-15-2012, 03:47 PM
In Canada most things are sweetened with sucralose-even Popsicles that are labeled low in sugar.
Ip packets all have sucralose if they are sweet.
Stevia may be natural, but it's currently not approved in Canada as a food sweetener. It can only be sold separately.
There is so much nutritional misinformation out there.

It all started with the lie that fat makes us fat! We should never have stopped eating eggs and replaced then with whole wheat toast!

Sewmam
05-15-2012, 04:53 PM
I have no problem if you disagree with me. You have YOUR opinion. Your opinion is valuable, just as mine is, but if you choose to disagree, please do so respectfully. None of us need to be attacked for expressing a concern over using a CHEMICAL in our food or for sharing websites and quotes with a point of view that differs from yours.

I completely agree with you. A vigorous debate is one thing, but some of the things said in this thread are inappropriate for this forum.

Bunny Gal
05-24-2012, 02:39 PM
I just started the Ideal Protein Diet and my doc told me to go out and buy Walden Farm's products, which are loaded with sucralose. I am getting horrible headaches every single time I use any of the IP diet products containing sucralose (bars, puddings, etc.) and also all of the WF products. I have a terrible allergy to aspartame, which gives me the same debilitating headaches. My doc says my body is just going thru "withdrawal" and to continue to eat the sucralose products. Did some research and I tend to agree with JoesHotWife: I think this sucralose stuff is what is giving me the headaches, and I intend to avoid ALL food with it in there! I'm just going to avoid sweeteners 100% and stick with veggies and lean proteins.

purple sky
05-24-2012, 04:31 PM
It seems like if you wait long enough, something that is good for you will end up being very bad for you and vice versa. I remember when Agave was touted as a wonderful alternative to sugar and honey. Then, real sugar was the best. But, for some of us we know what sugar does to us so we have to avoid it. I, personally, am not a fan of Splenda. If nothing else, I just don't like the taste but it was a big deal for people when it came onbaord as it has allowed a lot of people the ability to consume sweet products. Years ago, eggs were bad and to this day, it's still in the back of my mind and I never had a cholesterol problem.

Things seem to ebb and flow and the fear around food is a little tricky these days. I don't want to hate food. We probably all know people who smoked, drank or had soda everyday and lived to their 70's 80's or 90's. So, it's not one size fits all.

I lean natural whenever possible so Stevia talks to me. I get no headaches and no cravings and I am thankful for that. I also liked agave when I used it. And I love soda with real sugar. I thought it was the best thing ever.

Bunny Gal
05-24-2012, 04:43 PM
I agree with you, Purple Sky! I too have tried Stevia and have had no issues whatsoever. To me it's sort of scary to eat something made out of a test tube with its molecules all re-arranged so your body doesn't know what it's dealing with.... hmmmm! Give me natural products (even sugar) any day of the week. I just wish I could go back to plain ol' sugar on this diet, but I'm willing to substitute Stevia when needed and see if that does the trick. Thanks for the reply! :)

ferrousgal
05-24-2012, 05:04 PM
So is natural good or bad then?

Yeah, exactly. There's plenty of natural stuff out there that is bad for you. People get nasty reactions from herbal supplements and remedies all the time.

purple sky
05-24-2012, 05:06 PM
I agree with you, Purple Sky! I too have tried Stevia and have had no issues whatsoever. To me it's sort of scary to eat something made out of a test tube with its molecules all re-arranged so your body doesn't know what it's dealing with.... hmmmm! Give me natural products (even sugar) any day of the week. I just wish I could go back to plain ol' sugar on this diet, but I'm willing to substitute Stevia when needed and see if that does the trick. Thanks for the reply! :)

Bunny,

I do miss sugar. I know I need to try sugar or honey again, one or the other. I am unsure about baking or cooking with stevia. I really use it mostly in drinks and it's fine.

I had trouble with the IP products. But, I honestly could not tell you if it was the Splenda or the soy. I had to cut out IP bars for a while because I had a reaction to them. Soy is a great source of protein but it is also a major allergen like eggs, nuts and milk.

There is another product I just heard about called Just like Sugar. I am trying to learn a bit about it to see if it is a possibility. I can't always take my dropper bottle with me wherever I go.

Bunny Gal
05-24-2012, 05:52 PM
I think I might try "Just Like Sugar" too. Apparently it's made from the chicory root, which seems to have some medicinal properties (just Google the words "Just Like Sugar reviews" and a ton of stuff comes up). Just like all of these sugar substitutes, the jury seems to be out on this one too. Some say it has no taste at all, others love it. Oh well, figured it worth the $5 to give it a try. Have also heard good/bad about Truvia, but found out it contains Erythritol, which can wreak havoc with the body as well. (Are we TOTALLY confused yet?? I am!!:dizzy:)

purple sky
05-24-2012, 06:23 PM
Yes, confused as sugar alcohols are tricky for some. I still don't get what they are. I don't know where to find Just like Sugar in the stores but may order it one day. Yes, Stevia is sweeter than sugar and this appears to be less sweet so it becomes costly over time. But, I can get it in packets and it is supposed to be sugar like. People bake with it. Stevia is a sweetener but not sugar like. I believe the Simply Bars that I ordered are sweetened with chicory root. And I used to use something with beet juice or something. Now that I liked.

JoesHotWife
05-24-2012, 09:51 PM
One of the problems with aspartame and sucralose is that the body can taste the sweet and releases insulin in anticipation of the sweet calories which never come. This drops our blood sugar and is why some of us have cravings when using splenda products. I know I have more of a challenge staying OP when I consume more sucralose. The aspartame gives me terrible headaches so I haven't used that in years. I am more sensitive to chemicals in general, so for me Stevia is a much better choice. It doesn't cause the same cravings or headaches. Since not everyone is as sensitive, it is good to have healthy discussions so everyone has a chance to see a different point of view, do research and decide what might work best for themselves.

purple sky
05-25-2012, 03:17 PM
When in ketosis I had trouble with MIO which is sweetened with Splenda. Interestingly, it is much less of an issue now. My cravings, especially around TOM were out of control back then. Less of an issue now.

I think as we go through this diet we clear out a lot of the gunk and our bodies become more more sensitive. Foods we used to enjoy are no longer enjoyable and can actually make us feel bad.

JoesHotWife
05-25-2012, 08:09 PM
I agree. I think that is really true with high fat and over processed things.

wurdnerd
05-26-2012, 07:54 AM
I can't help but point out the irony of someone on the IP diet program being worried about artificial sweeteners and highly processed things. Have you looked at the ingredient list on those IP packets? Just sayin'.

Bunny Gal
05-26-2012, 10:39 AM
Wurdnerd, I agree with you totally about the ingredients on those IP packets! Fortunately since I just started I was able to exchange the packets I didn't like for ones I did, so I took back ALL of the sweet stuff (puddings, drinks, etc.) and exchanged them for the soups and the omelettes, which appear to have no sucralose in them at all. I also gave away all my Walden Farms dressings to my sister who has no problem with artificial sweeteners (and loves the stuff - yuck!), so right now I'm just using Stevia in my coffee, that's it. No side effects whatsoever and I feel great. I think they should really warn people about the possible side effects of sucralose... maybe I'm just being paranoid, but I think a great majority of the population has problems with artificial sweeteners. Also found out that sucralose was originally designed to be an INSECTICIDE... whaaat??? Change a molecule or two and now we go from an insecticide to a sweetener. Gross!

Bunny Gal
05-26-2012, 10:42 AM
Also, no offense to the hardcore IP users in this forum... but I also go to a local farm and get fresh eggs, and have started making my own egg white omelettes as well. (I'll still use the packets until they run out, but thought I would give this a go as well). I guess this is the fodder for a whole 'nother discussion forum: the ingredients of IP products -- are they wholesome? Hmmmm?:?:

Momto2cs
05-26-2012, 10:46 AM
You should eat the yolks too. The fat and nutrients in the yolk are important for good health!

Bunny Gal
05-26-2012, 10:51 AM
Thanks, Momto2cs! I do hear the yolks aren't all that bad for you, especially on farm-fresh eggs. They are the best on the planet too! I always worried about the cholesterol issue, tho. I think there is research that goes both ways on that issue. Regardless, I say if nature made it, it's gotta be good, right?

purple sky
05-26-2012, 01:41 PM
Wurdnerd, I agree with you totally about the ingredients on those IP packets! Fortunately since I just started I was able to exchange the packets I didn't like for ones I did, so I took back ALL of the sweet stuff (puddings, drinks, etc.) and exchanged them for the soups and the omelettes, which appear to have no sucralose in them at all. I also gave away all my Walden Farms dressings to my sister who has no problem with artificial sweeteners (and loves the stuff - yuck!), so right now I'm just using Stevia in my coffee, that's it. No side effects whatsoever and I feel great. I think they should really warn people about the possible side effects of sucralose... maybe I'm just being paranoid, but I think a great majority of the population has problems with artificial sweeteners. Also found out that sucralose was originally designed to be an INSECTICIDE... whaaat??? Change a molecule or two and now we go from an insecticide to a sweetener. Gross!

When I first started IP I was very nervous about what was in the packets, so I just shut a blind eye. I can tell you this that once I went into phase 3 I felt great. My body was so happy. It was missing something.

I think though, there are almost no health products out there without allergens. I remember looking into some product last fall. And part of the way they were pitching it was to list all the ingredients they do not have. I thought okay. Part of the problem with removing nearly every single allergen is taste and consistency. I would love to find a food version of IP but that was not going to happen and over time I grew dependent packets to the point where for some reason I am having difficulty weaning myself off. I needed IP to retrain my body to eat healthier and that was not going to happen cold turkey one day. In my head I knew what I was supposed to be eating. But, in actuality I could do it no more than a few days.

Here are some of the tricky ones.
Whey
Soy
Sucralose
Those other sugars with sugar alcohols

Whey and soy are some great sources of protein but many are allergic or sensitive to soy. And I don't remember if you can tolerate whey if you are dairy sensitive. But, there is a certain kind of whey that is fine. Something about the casein or something. Too confusing for me.

Coming up with products without artificial sweeteners, and soy and whey are challenging. Now, I have seen pea protein but who puts that in a bar.

These items also have to have a shelf life and be able to travel.

It gets crazy.

We also have immune systems that are supposed to do some of the heavy lifting.

Momto2cs
05-26-2012, 02:04 PM
I believe all research shows cholesterol is not bad for you. There a no longer dietary guidelines for cholesterol in Canada. Check out a blog called the war on insulin. He is excellent.

JoesHotWife
05-26-2012, 04:53 PM
I can't help but point out the irony of someone on the IP diet program being worried about artificial sweeteners and highly processed things. Have you looked at the ingredient list on those IP packets? Just sayin'.

I addressed this very issue earlier in the thread:

"My need to reduce my weight, outweighed the risk from the use of artificial sweeteners while on IP. I choose to use stevia if I need additional sweetness in things, and do not plan to be on IP longer than necessary. This is MY choice based on the research I have done and my beliefs. As I said, each person must decide what is right for them."

Because my weight was over 200 pounds, my blood pressure was high, my A1C was 10.9, my cholesterol was high (so high they could not calculate the LDL) and my normal blood sugar ran between 350 and 425, I was literally at death's door. After 3 months on IP, my bloodwork came back normal in every way. A1C went to 5.4, blood sugar 87, triglycerides went from 522 to 97. For me, this was the best choice.

salmongirl
05-26-2012, 05:03 PM
I think that sometimes to achieve balance you have to weigh the scales one way or the other. For me, I was overweight and unhealthy. Now my weight is getting under control, thanks to IP, and when I am finished with that then I will attempt to get the rest under control. This is Joeshotwife is saying. We know that if we were at a normal weight and in good health IP would not be the best diet. But that is not where we are in life, it is where we are heading.

salmongirl
05-26-2012, 05:05 PM
Just another note, I raise chickens so I eat farm fresh eggs, I raise my own lamb and I milk my dairy sheep. (sheep milk is by far the healthiest, look it up) So I am not a stranger to local food, or the health issues of the day. IP works for me right now.

kaplods
05-26-2012, 06:25 PM
I have no problem if you disagree with me. You have YOUR opinion. Your opinion is valuable, just as mine is, but if you choose to disagree, please do so respectfully. None of us need to be attacked for expressing a concern over using a CHEMICAL in our food or for sharing websites and quotes with a point of view that differs from yours.

I don't think anyone here has attacked anyone. Some of the disagreements have been passionate, but certainly not disrespectful. I certainly didn't mean any of my posts as disrespectful or hurtful in any way (humorous and cautionary counterpoint, but not hurtful or disrespectful).

[QUOTE=JoesHotWife;4334293] sometimes people lie to us for profit.

I think it's also important to remenber that people lie and pass on inaccurate information for other reasons too - some well-intended some not. Just because there's no obvious profit-motive, doesn't mean the "information" is accurate.

And it's the inaccuracies I was wanting to point out, not argue that there aren't some good reasons for avoiding artificial sweeteners (and stevia). I just think it's very important that our decisions need to be made based on information, not propoganda.

I choose aspartame and splenda over stevia (even though the former two are less natural), because I've read the research (taking into account profit motive and the academic reputation of both the researchers and the journal in which the research is published).

I will use stevia in very small quantities (because I believe that the history of use does indicate that it's probably safe in small to moderate doses), but don't use it indescriminately because of the research I could find (only a couple studies so far) that links of birth defects (of the reproductive tract) in the offspring of lab rodents (rats and hamsters I believe) fed large amounts of stevia.

I'm not too worried about the stevia, because I'm not going to be having any children, but if I were pregnant, I would avoid stevia (and aspartame for different reasons I'm not going into, except that the reasons are in the research and not difficult to find or verify). With Splenda, I'm not so sure.

Trusting ingredients that have been in the human food supply for the longest amounts of time (in as close to the natural state as possible), is a great strategy, but it's not an entirely foolproof one - especially when the claim of "natural" is rather spurious (such as in truvia and agave syrup - which are highly processed foods that really have never historically been used in the quantities that Americans tend to use them).

People don't want to take the time to dig through the research or to carefully verify and evaluate the sources of the information, and that's WHY so much of the mythinformation abounds (and gets exagerated even further like a game of telephone).