I just found some articles online that say how bad Aspartame and Splenda is for you. I knew some about the aspartame but thought Splenda was ok because it was made from sugar. I guess it is not. It has side effects also. My question is this: the protein shake I drink now has splenda in it and is low in carbs (4). Does anyone know a good whey protein shake powder that tastes pretty good but also isnt too high on the carbs side?
Hi -
I use a lot of Splenda in my diet. I love it. Could you expand a little more on what the article said? What are the side effects? I know this day would come for Splenda!
I'd take those articles with a HUGE grain of salt.
The NutraSweet/Aspartame rumors have been swirling around for YEARS now. They predate the Internet in fact...but there is really no solid proof to them, IMO.
And for the record...this same hoo-hah went on back in the late 1970's when MEGADOSES of saccharin were found in a few studies to cause tumors in rats. (Keep in mind that the amount of saccharin the rats were given was WAY more than a person would be able to, or want to, ingest in the same amount of time.) In fact, the talk of banning saccharin was the catalyst for getting NutraSweet on the market and into products such as diet drinks, etc. (aspartame had, in fact, been developed in 1966, and was throughly tested - the reason it wasn't used in products quicker was the significantly higher cost of Aspartame compared to saccharin.)
If you want an example of someone who's used artificial sweeteners for decades with no harm whatsoever - look at *me*. My father was in the food industry since the late 1950's. When I was a kid, I drank a LOT of diet soda. And I mean a LOT - our garage was FILLED with cases of the stuff. I'm too young to remember cyclamates (which were banned in the 1960's) but I do remember drinking lots of saccharin-sweetened drinks. Dad started working with aspartame (NutraSweet) back in, oh, I'd say the early 70's, at least that's when he started bringing home gum and stuff that was sweetened with aspartame for us kids to use. My dad was no slouch in the lab - he'd done enough analysis and work with aspartame and saccharin to know that it wasn't going to kill us or hurt us, and felt perfectly safe in giving it to us. I've drank Diet Coke pretty regularly since it was introduced in 1981/1982 - first it was saccharin-sweetened, then later in oh, around 82-83, they started using aspartame instead.
I DO know people who get headaches from using aspartame (not sure about Splenda) or it tastes yukky to them. We're all different, and different substances are going to affect each one of us in different ways. (for example - if I even have a small glass of wine or alcohol, I'm virtually guaranteed a throbbing headache the next morning.) Not that I'm a doctor or anything, but I consider it similar to Chinese Restaurant Syndrome - you know, people who are supersensitive to MSG. But I don't see anyone jumping up and down saying to ban MSG!
My final thoughts on artificial sweeteners in general: If you like them, use them. If you don't like them or feel you experience ill effects from them, don't use them.
I was using it too and I like to drink diet soda (only one or two a day). I want to drink something with some taste once in awhile! Oh well being healthy is better I suppose
Oh - here's an article on Splenda that was in the San Francisco Chronicle a couple weeks ago...you might find it interesting especially the cooking/baking parts. (Incidentally, in case you DON'T know this, you should NOT cook with Aspartame - the amino acids that make up the sweetener break down and the sweetener turns VERY bitter indeed - it always kills me to see recipes like "Cherries Jubilee" that call to pour in some Diet Coke and heat to boiling!)
Quote:
SPLENDA 101
Carb counters have embraced it. Millions are buying it. But what does it taste like? And how does it behave in the kitchen?
- Carol Ness, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 15, 2004
Piled high with cupcakes, brownies and creme brulee, a high-powered trio of Bay Area pastry chefs arrived in The Chronicle test kitchen to put the artificial sweetener Splenda through its paces.
Elizabeth Falkner of Citizen Cake, Emily Luchetti of Farallon and Carolyn Weil, a baking teacher, were here to help evaluate this Atkins-fueled phenomenon, which in just three years on the market has eaten its competition -- including sugar -- alive.
Splenda is the first no-calorie, no-carbohydrate sweetener whose sweetness doesn't change when it's heated. Unlike aspartame (Equal) and saccharin (Sweet 'N Low), it can be used in cooking and baking, and carb- conscious home cooks are gobbling it up.
Our chefs, purists by philosophy and nature, were skeptical, but happy to lend their talents and palates to the test. Each arrived with three batches of desserts they'd whipped up in their kitchens, one each made with sugar, Splenda and a blend of the two. They bruleed the custards and test-baked some more cookies.
Just as the tasting began, the brownies made with Splenda thudded out of their pan in one thin, dense square.
"It looks like a pot holder," cracked Falkner. "Or a floor tile," said Luchetti.
But the intent of the tests was serious. We were checking out both the taste and performance of a new sweetener that, with obesity and diabetes rampant, Americans are using in huge amounts to cut carbs, control blood sugar and lose weight.
As of midsummer, Splenda accounted for almost half the supermarket sales of sugar substitutes in the United States, according to IRI, a Chicago market research company. Cookbooks with recipes for Splenda blintzes and cakes are proliferating. And sucralose, the sweetener in Splenda, is the new darling of food manufacturers, showing up in commercial baked goods and sodas, including Coca-Cola and Pepsi's new mid-calorie colas.
Sweet chemistry
Sucralose was discovered in a British lab in the 1970s, and was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 1998. As Splenda, it went on the U.S. market in 2000.
Sucralose claims a clean chemical pedigree because it is made from sucrose, a natural sugar (see diagram above). Chlorine is added to the sucrose, and a chemical reaction changes the sucrose molecule to replace some of the hydrogen-oxygen groups with chlorine. That prevents the body from metabolizing it in the same way as it does sugar.
This also allows Splenda's U.S. manufacturers, McNeil Nutritionals, part of Johnson & Johnson, to state on the label that it's "made from sugar," suggesting that it's natural.
The addition of chlorine also has provoked Splenda's critics to call it a chlorocarbon, a chemical found in pesticides.
In fact, Splenda is neither natural nor a pesticide. It's a new chemical. Studies have shown that it causes no immediate health problems, But most of these studies have been done by the manufacturer, and no one yet knows what long-term ingestion of large amounts might do over a lifetime.
Whole Foods Markets compares the altered sucrose to hydrogenated fats (trans fats), the chemically changed fat molecules that won broad acceptance only to be found unhealthy after decades of use. The grocery chain declines to sell either.
Is it healthy?
Splenda is being marketed as healthy, "ideal for the whole family." TV ads during the Olympics showed happy children with cookie hearts and doughnuts made with Splenda. Soccer star Mia Hamm was featured in an earlier ad campaign.
Many dietitians find sucralose and other artificial sweeteners useful for their clients.
"I don't have any problems with my diabetics or those who would like to lose weight using Splenda," as long as diabetics count their carbs and dieters count their calories, says Nancy Bennett, a San Francisco dietitian.
"The big picture is, what poses more risk -- the untreated diabetes or the (yellow) stuff?" says Bennett, who uses Splenda in her coffee.
Other dietitians, though, say artificial sweeteners trigger cravings for sweet treats, making it difficult to diet or control blood sugar. Or they point out that sweeteners substitute a non-nutritive food for one that has vitamins and other nutrients -- for example, a Splenda muffin might have the same number of carbs as an apple, but the apple is better for you.
For diabetics with a sweet tooth who like to cook but want to avoid sugar, Splenda has been a godsend.
"I wasted a lot of time and ingredients baking with other things," says Allison Salzman Cozzi, a 50-year-old Concord woman with diabetes.
Cozzi knows that as a diabetic it's total carbohydrates, not sugar per se, that she needs to limit. But replacing sugar with Splenda lets her eat more of other foods she likes. "It's like free money," she says.
Other diabetics who choose to manage their blood sugar by eating whole foods disagree. Many say they'd rather have half a muffin made with sugar, a natural food that tastes better, than a whole muffin made with Splenda.
When it comes to flavor, Splenda has a reputation of outshining its competitors.
Marilee McGregor of Walnut Creek, a director of the American Diabetes Association, says she finds Splenda pleasantly less sweet than aspartame or saccharin.
"It's like a bran muffin instead of a blueberry muffin. A blueberry muffin says sweeeeeet; a bran muffin says healthy," she says. "It's the best thing on the market."
Cozzi prefers Splenda, too. Perhaps because she grew up in a family that used artificial sweeteners routinely, she doesn't notice off-tastes in any of them.
Not so for The Chronicle food staff. We tasted Splenda, Equal, Sweet 'N Low and sugar, in coffee, lemonade, sliced fruit, cookies and creme brulee. We preferred the clean taste of sugar in all.
Among the artificial sweeteners, though, we leaned toward Splenda. The others were either too sweet, tasted chemical or bitter, or had strong aftertastes. But despite our preference for Splenda, we found it left behind an unpleasant, lingering fake sweetness.
With the three pastry chefs, we also tasted our way through the desserts they'd made -- cookies, brownies, cupcakes, ice cream and creme brulee, made with sugar, Splenda and a blend.
Taste was definitely an issue with the desserts made with both the Splenda and the blend. We noticed that after our first bite, Splenda's sweetness took a few moments to come on, and then it was concentrated on the very tip of the tongue, never reaching the rest of our taste buds.
"It has no depth," said Falkner.
The sweetness also seemed to block other flavors. The egg yolks, cream and vanilla in the ice cream and creme brulee simply disappeared, and even the cocoa in the brownies barely came through.
And then an odd sweetness lingered in our mouths long -- even hours -- after the food was gone.
Splenda works as advertised in sauces and other liquids, and when cooked with fruit. But because sucralose's chemical structure differs from sugar's, it bakes up very differently. Sugar provides more than sweetness -- it also adds moisture and bulk, and browns. Splenda doesn't.
Granular Splenda, which measures tablespoon-for-tablespoon like sugar, is mostly the fluffy filler maltodextrin, which melts away to almost nothing when added to liquid or heated.
Most baking recipes need changes to replace sugar with Splenda. Otherwise, the results will be dry, dense and pale.
Giving Splenda help
This isn't news to Splenda's manufacturer, which has posted tips for baking with Splenda on its Web site. Among them: increase flour and leavening to lighten cakes, and spritz the tops of cookies with cooking spray to help them brown. (See "Cooking with Splenda" tips, this page.)
The new Splenda-sugar blend was created to address these shortcomings.
McGregor used Splenda in a family pecan pie recipe and found she only had to add about a half-cup more of the sweetener to make it taste like her grandmother's. But she's learned that she can't use it in souffles, because they don't rise.
But for pastry chefs like Falkner, Luchetti and Weil, working with Splenda was like a trip to an alternate universe where nothing went as it should. They found a pattern with the baked items. The ones made with the sugar rose, had a moist, light texture and browned nicely. The ones made with Splenda were flat, dense and dry. The Splenda-sugar blend improved the texture and added moisture, but the results didn't match sugar.
The brownies were a good example. Weil made them using a basic Fannie Farmer recipe. The batch made with sugar baked up into a rich square, about an inch thick, with a moist looking top that had some give when pressed with a finger. They tasted rich and fudgy.
The Splenda-blend brownies rose less and unevenly, had a rubbery feeling and were dry. They tasted better than the all-Splenda batch, but the cocoa flavor was muted and they left an aftertaste.
The Splenda batch was flat, dense as a board, incredibly dry and tasteless, but with a sweet aftertaste.
The chefs also ran into problems with the non-baked desserts, vanilla ice cream and creme brulee. The Splenda left the ice cream so hard it broke into shards when scooped, and made a custard that Luchetti said "looks like airline scrambled eggs."
Using the blend vastly improved the texture of both; they were smoother and creamier. But still, if either had been made in the Citizen Cake or Farallon kitchen, the chefs would have demanded to know "what happened here?"
Bottom line: "It just doesn't perform as well, and it doesn't have the taste" or the texture of sugar, says Falkner. And the taste leaves you wanting something more.
"You're just so much more satisfied when you eat the real deal," she says.
Weil, who had gestational diabetes when she was pregnant, knows the ups and downs of blood sugar. "If you bake with Splenda, you still have to count all the other calories," she points out.
Again, the brownies tell the story. The ones made with sugar had 161 calories and 21 grams of carbohydrates; the Splenda brownies had 101 calories and 6 grams of carbohydrates. Both brownies had 8 grams of fat. The brownie made with the blend saved just 23 calories, but the texture and flavor were inferior.
For people who are counting every carb, the savings matter. Cozzi says her blood sugar levels have been stellar and "I attribute that to the presence of Splenda around me. I use it every day."
For the chefs, the trade-off in pleasure delivered by a sweet treat isn't worth it. At Citizen Cake's bakery counter, customers sometimes ask Falkner to make them a Splenda cake. She tells them, "I'll make you half a real cake."
Adds Luchetti, "It's like, would you rather have one great glass of wine or four glasses of bad wine?"
Diabetes, she says, is one thing, but most people just need to eat less.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why no recipes?
The Food section tested several recipes with Splenda and with a Splenda- sugar blend. Three of the recipes came from the Splenda Web site; others were basic recipes in which we substituted Splenda for sugar.
None of the dishes met our test-kitchen standards (though the Splenda- sugar blend worked fairly well in custard and ice cream). So we are not printing any recipes with our Splenda story today.
However, those wishing to cook with Splenda can find many recipes on the company's Web site: www.splenda.com.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cooking with Splenda
Elizabeth Falkner, chef at Citizen Cake, Emily Luchetti of Farallon and baking teacher Carolyn Weil can't believe how badly the Splenda brownies came out. Chronicle photo by Craig Lee
Our cooking tests and the Splenda Web site taught us a few things about cooking and baking with Splenda. Generally, it works best when its function is only to sweeten, as in sauces, marinades, pie fillings and beverages. In recipes where sugar would add bulk, texture, moisture and browning, adjustments must be made if Splenda is used instead. Here are some tips:
Candy and frosting -- Because sugar is crucial to taste and structure, Splenda's makers recommend replacing only one-quarter of it with Splenda.
Brown sugar -- If a recipe calls for brown sugar, you can use molasses mixed into Splenda. Cookie dough was stickier than usual but otherwise OK.
Creaming -- When making cookies, Splenda creams well into butter, but adding eggs turns the mixture wet and lumpy, like cottage cheese. When flour is added, this problem disappears.
Spreading -- Splenda doesn't spread, so flatten cookies before baking.
Texture -- Replace only the white sugar in cookie recipes that use brown sugar too, to keep a chewy crunch.
Yeast activation -- Splenda won't do it, so add at least 2 teaspoons sugar.
Rising -- Splenda alone in cupcakes and brownies doesn't rise much; add 1/2 cup nonfat dry milk and 1/2 teaspoon baking soda per cup of Splenda.
Flavor -- Add 1 teaspoon vanilla per cup of Splenda in cookies and puddings; a little honey or molasses will boost flavor in muffins.
Browning -- Splenda's makers recommend using cooking spray to help cookies brown, but we didn't find it helped much.
Bruleeing -- Splenda doesn't caramelize, so it won't brulee. If using the baking blend, the sugar caramelizes but the Splenda stays separate and burns.
Bake time -- Reduce when using Splenda by 7 to 10 minutes for cakes, 3 to 5 minutes for cookies.
Storage -- Sugar helps preserve foods and retains moisture; wrap Splenda-baked goods well and freeze if you won't eat them within a day.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sugar substitutes are not all Equal
Splenda is one of many artificial sweeteners on the market. They're also called low-calorie, no-calorie and non-nutritive sweeteners. Some have no calories, others have half as many as sugar or more. Here's a quick look at the other sweeteners:
-- Aspartame (Equal, NutraSweet) -- Made by combining two amino acids, aspartic acid and phenylalanine. Has no calories. Used widely in soft drinks. Considered generally safe, but some people say it causes headaches, and those with a rare disease called phenylketonuria (PKU) must not consume it. It dissolves easily. Cookies we baked with it didn't taste sweet, but a custard did; bruleeing turned it bitter. Strong aftertaste.
-- Saccharin (Sweet 'N Low) -- A synthetic chemical discovered in a lab by mistake. Has no calories. Long known to cause cancer in rats, the FDA tried to ban it, then changed its mind. Recently linked to bladder cancer in humans in a National Cancer Institute study. Supersweet, so hard to measure. Made lemonade, custard and strawberries too sweet. Doesn't brulee. Strong aftertaste.
-- Sugar alcohols -- Xylitol, maltitol, sorbitol and other polyols are made by adding hydrogen atoms to sugar. Depending on how they're metabolized, they can range from no calories up to three-fourths those in sugar. Widely used in sugar-free candies and many low-carb sweets. Main drawback is that consuming more than just a little causes gas, bloating and diarrhea.
-- Acesulfame-K (Sweet One) -- Formally it's acesulfame potassium, a chemical that's not metabolized so has no calories. Found in combination with aspartame in soft drinks and many other products, including the new Equal baking blend. Approved by the FDA in 1988. The Center for Science in the Public Interest says tests intended to show it doesn't cause cancer have been ambiguous and so this sweetener needs more study.
-- Stevia -- A powerful sweetener derived from the leaves of a South American shrub that can be grown locally. Popular as a natural alternative to synthetic sweeteners. Active ingredient, stevioside, is 100 to 300 times sweeter than sugar. Sold as a dietary supplement, but not approved for use in foods in the United States, Canada or Europe because some studies have linked stevia to reproductive problems in rats. Further testing is awaited.
-- Neotame -- New sweetener made from the same amino acids as aspartame, but with a stronger chemical bond and 30 to 40 times as sweet. Approved in 2002.
-- Tagatose -- Another new one, made from lactose and marketed as Naturlose. Hit the U.S. market last year. Has one-third the calories of sugar. Can cause intestinal rumblings. It's the sweetener in 7-Eleven's Diet Pepsi Slurpee.
-- Others -- In the pipeline are trehalose (approved for use but not around much yet), alitame and the return of cyclamate (which was banned in 1970 but the FDA is reconsidering).
Thanks for the input. I hear you. I have noticed a few of the symptoms I do have and so does my eleven year old. I am going to try to cut them out and see if the symptoms dont disappear.
I am just on this journey to try to be as healthy as I can be and also teach my girls to do the same. Hopefully they will remember everything I say to them and put it in to practice as adults.
Thanks for the input. I hear you. I have noticed a few of the symptoms I do have and so does my eleven year old. I am going to try to cut them out and see if the symptoms dont disappear.
I am just on this journey to try to be as healthy as I can be and also teach my girls to do the same. Hopefully they will remember everything I say to them and put it in to practice as adults.
Christina
"Symptoms"?? What do you mean by "Symptoms"?
Most of those links you posted are basically hysteria, with little basis in fact. There is NO SUCH THING as 'aspartame poisioning'. If there IS, why don't I - or my three sisters, or my parents (all of us whom have been using Aspartame for more than 30 years!), or my seven nieces and nephews, showing any 'symptoms'? The websites you posted blame Aspartame - and now Sucralose - for every malady known to man, it seems.
Here's an interesting article, written by Michael Fumento back in 1996. You'll see that this hysteria has been ongoing for years - meanwhile, with the MILLIONS of people using artificial sweeteners, ya think that 'aspartame poisoning' would be more prevalant - except for the fact that it doesn't exist, except in the minds of a few people with widely-read Web sites. And remember - just because someone has a nice looking Website that says something, doesn't make what they say true.
Quote:
NutraSweet Fuss Amounts to Sweet Nothings
By Michael Fumento
Sadly, even when the media gets it right on health issues, they often only get it partly right. Consider the recent fuss over the study linking the artificial sweetener aspartame, better known as NutraSweet, to brain cancer.
True enough, media reaction was overwhelmingly skeptical. On the other hand, media reaction was also overwhelming, with over 50 articles on the subject. How often do you see 50 articles on, say, a flying saucer not landing on the White House lawn?
The analogy, I think, is apt, because this is a study that doesn't deserve the least bit of ink. Indeed, the real story is that it's simply a piece of nonsense put out by a man who has spent the last two decades putting out nonsense and providing aid and comfort to fringe groups like the Aspartame Consumer Safety Network, which claims that sodas with NutraSweet are the cause of so-called Gulf War Syndrome.
The study in question appeared in the Journal of Neuropathology and Experimental Neurology. The chief author was Dr. John Olney, a psychiatry professor at Washington University in St. Louis. Olney's "evidence," as it were, of the alleged link was that NutraSweet was introduced in 1981, brain cancers went up in 1985, therefore quite possibly – though he didn't say definitely – NutraSweet caused the cancer increase.
Honest, I've got the study right in front of me. That's all there was to it. Olney could just as easily have blamed the rise in brain tumors on Ronald Reagan becoming president, which also occurred in 1981. In fact, if he were Bryant Gumble, maybe he would have.
Actually, Olney's conclusions are even flimsier when you consider that according to his own data, fatal brain tumors leveled off right after that 1985 jump. Yet every year Americans eat more and more NutraSweet. Why hasn't there been a steady increase?
So where did Olney get this hare-brained idea? Turns out he's had it for decades. Since at least 1975, when aspartame was still being tested, he and an activist group called Consumer Action for Improved Food and Drugs have been railing against NutraSweet as having the potential to cause brain damage.
Olney's "study" wasn't making an observation; it was pursuing a vendetta.
Further, it failed a standard of proof Olney himself set back in 1987, when he told United Press International that brain tumors from NutraSweet wouldn't show up in cancer statistics for 20 years. This was an acknowledgment that with malignant brain tumors, as with all cancers, there is a lengthy lag time between the instigation of the tumor and the actual appearance.
But recall that Olney's study shows only four years between the brain cancer increase and the introduction of NutraSweet. Further, as Olney acknowledges, NutraSweet didn't really get into wide use until 1983, just two years before the jump in brain cancers. What happened to that 20-year lag time Olney had talked about?
But it seems that NutraSweet hasn't been Olney's only target. The three products that have traditionally brought the weirdos out of the woodwork in this country are artificial sweeteners, fluoride (added to water supplies to prevent tooth decay), and monosodium glutamate (MSG). So far as I know, Olney has had nothing to do with fluoride hysteria, but MSG is a different matter.
Since the late 1960s, Olney has also railed against this popular additive to Chinese and other foods. Indeed, in 1975 he and an activist group called Consumer Action for Improved Food and Drugs, declared that MSG combined with, yes, NutraSweet it would cause brain damage in children.
Olney was quoted as an "expert" in a 1991 60 Minutes segment, reported by Ed Bradley, that sought – unsuccessfully – to incite a national panic over MSG. This show was two years after Bradley kicked off the Alar panic.
Yet, the World Health Organization and the European Community's Scientific Committee for Food had already both concluded there was no research to indicated MSG was a health hazard. Since then, the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Drugs came to the same conclusion. Just within the past couple of months, an FDA panel found MSG to be harmless, save for the possibility that it could worsen symptoms in some persons suffering severe asthma.
None of this is to say that certain foods can't cause certain bad reactions in some individuals, including NutraSweet or MSG. (Tens of millions of Americans have bad reactions to sugar. They're called diabetics.) Indeed, there have been people who have gone into shock and died after eating a single peanut.
Three years ago, I developed a slight case of hives after eating a Hostess apple pie, though I'd been eating them all my adult life. Go figure. But you don't see me going out and forming the Fruit Pie Consumer Safety Network.
Then again, if I develop a brain tumor in the next year or two, I know what national bakery I'm going to sue!
I wonder if the artificial sweetener hoaxes will ever die? They are like the old Neiman Marcus Chocolate Chip Cookie chain letters, lol. The Coca Cola scare is the latest urban myth that is taking over the net, also false.
MrsJim, thanks for printing those great articles and links! Hopefully, the artificial sweetener confusion will die soon
One of the best devices used by competitors is to start rumors about the competition. I'm sure such rumors were started by the sugar industry considering that sugar is much cheaper than artificial sweetners thus a much higher profit margin. Of course the sugar industry is still going strong
The reports about aspartame and splenda being unhealthy are not "hoaxes" - the have been published also on Nutrition books, alternative health, books etc, and are supported by many health practitioners, especially the ones that promote the use of whole foods over processed ones, which I believe, we can all agree is a good thing to do.
A good, reader-friendly article on the dangers of aspartame is included in the famous "vitamin bible" Prescription for a nutritional healing. Aspartame may not show symptoms of sensitivity in some people, but it does have an effect on the nervous system: it harms the production of new brain cells, which is why many experts believe that aspartame consumption during pregnancy is to blame for spina bifida, because aspartame does the opposite of the B vitamin Folic Acid (recommended during pregnancy to prevent said spina bifida malformation).
As for Splenda, it's too soon to tell - there aren't any long-term studies that show its effects, really, because it's pretty recent. However, it's a ubstance that has been modified in a lab so that it won't be absorbed by the body... I personally steer clear of lab-created and highly processed foods and additives, because I believe the best fuel for our bodies is whole foods: foods that have been modified as little as possible.
If one wants to use aspartame or splenda, that's of course a personal choice, just like eating foods with hydrogenated fats or drinking alcohol etc, but I don't think it's right to try to justify it by labelling the research as "internet hoax" - if you want to do it, just do it, it's your body afterall.
The problem is that MOST of the cr*p people read on the Internet about these substances ARE myths and hoaxes. Even reading something in a book doesn't make it so. I've seen this issue come up again and again on bulletin boards and I ask the same question each time, and get resounding silence as an answer: Show me published, peer-reviewed articles of double-blind studies. Anybody can write something based on theory, or on half-assed "research" and get it published in a book or in a biased publication. The primary article (supposedly a speech that was given by a scientist) that gets passed around as "proof" that aspartame is harmful has been shown over and over to be an out-and-out fiction. The scientist doesn't exist, the connections between aspartame and the medical conditions listed don't exist. When you do read one of these anti- articles, it's not that the substance is being tied to one particular condition -- it is blamed it for a kitchen-sink full of ills.
Aspartame has been tested over and over and over again; as Karen said, it's been around since the mid-1960s. I'm not saying science is perfect, or that the FDA is perfect, or anything of that nature -- mistakes have been made in the past, and will be in the future. And, the anecdotal evidence seems to indicate that SOME people are sensitive to it. Still, millions upon millions of people consume aspartame daily, for many years, with no harmful effects. Lots of people have sensitivities to raw egg -- I know someone who will go into anaphalactic shock and can DIE from ingesting egg that's not cooked to death. Other people have sensitivities to all sorts of things, both natural and manufactured -- peanuts, shellfish, flour, dairy, MSG, papayas, and on and on. In addition, consuming a lot of calcium can interfere with magnesium absorption. There are lots of natural substances that "cancel each other out" in that way.
I'm open to the idea that ANY substance may be harmful, at least to certain people. And, I completely respect a personal philosphy that shuns additives, etc. But, to associate any problem you might have with one substance without considering it might be coincidence, or to say that no one should ingest something based on a few persistent patently false urban legands, is a bit over the top.
Personally, I don't use very much splenda or aspartame, but I used to. I used to drink a few diet sodas a day among other artificially sweetened products. At the current time I don't drink sodas any more nor do I have any artificially sweetened products. I have read the articles on splenda and aspartame but I haven't read anything that seems to have proof. If there is proof, I would be willing to read it.
thanks for all the info in Splenda!!!
i havent have a lot of computer access the past few days, so I will read all the info when I get back to my home on Monday night.
Anyhow - i cant wait to read them all so I am informed about what I am putting in my body...even if it is safe.
i just wanted to make sure that it wasnt as if there was some awful definitive proof about Splenda that I hadn't heard about. that would be scary!
i hope everyone is having a nice weekend!
Newbie here, coming out of about two years of lurkdom! I want to be a LWL, but I had back surgery two months ago (herniated disk L4-L5) and am waiting to get my general fitness level up before starting to lift and get strong and fit!!!
I just wanted to share my (apparent) experience with Splenda - this is only my personal experience. I had heard how good Splenda tasted, no aftertaste like some of the others, so I bought some. Early one Saturday morning, I made coffee and put Splenda in it. Tasted gooooood! But by Saturday evening, I had started coughing and my upper chest felt tight, so I thought I was having an allergic reaction from house cleaning (allergic to dust mites). Took antihistamines the rest of the weekend, put Splenda in coffee again Sunday a.m. Finally stopped coughing and felt better by Monday night. Put Equal in my coffee at work Mon-Fri., no reactions.
The next Saturday and Sunday, same coffee w/Splenda, later on Saturday, same coughing, etc. OK, what have I gotten in to that I am allergic to now?? Antihistamines and better again by Monday night. I had not given a thought to the fact that I had used Splenda again.
The following weekend (third time's the charm??), it happened again. By now I am starting to examine everything I have come into contact with, so I got on the trusty Internet and found sites where others reported allergic reactions to Splenda. It appears that I am not able to use Splenda. I have not used it since that last time and have not had the same symptoms.
For those of you that can use it, I'm happy for you, because I liked the taste of it better than Equal. For not, I am trying to wean myself from any sweetener at all in my coffee so that I don't start the day with a sweet buzz, but it is difficult, especially on Mondays!
About me, I live in beautiful North Carolina (can y'all hear my Southern accent?), 48 years old, live with DH and two teenagers (DS and DD), am 5'6'' and CW 199. You are all such a great source of information and inspiration for me. Sorry for being so long-winded. Thank you for being here!
Splenda & Aspartame
