Hi all! I'm a newbie to this board and glad to finally find some support! I was diagnosed with PCOS in 2002, 6 months after an early miscarriage and have benn trying to find a good doctor that will help me with my weight loss battle, nutritional needs and fertility issues. Been doing a lot on my own.

Been on WW since August 2006, Byetta since April 2007. Was on Metformin 1500/day but went off cause my fertility dr just wanted to continue to do the IUI and other drugs to get me pregnant and didn't really offer much in the wt loss help dept other than "stick to WW." I thought it was best to try to lose a little weight before going back.

Been doing alot of research on the net for PCOS nutritional diets. Majority of stuff points to low carb/low GI/higher fiber foods. But been wondering if splenda sweentener could aggrevate the PCOS and IR symptoms. Any one notice any differences? I love the 4C to go packets and use one in a 33oz bottle of water since I don't like the concentrated taste of a 16 oz and I figure at least I can meet my daily WW water intake goal easier by drinking 2 or 3 of these 33 oz bottles of water each day. (I used to be addicted to ShopRite brand ice tea mix and would drink at least 4-32oz glasses of it per day/evening along with 3-4 diet sodas a day - talk about a sugar/caffeine addiction! I have since cut down to 1 diet soda a day and 2-3 to go packets)

Hi and welcome !!! I have used artificial sweetners for years and have checked my glucose levels after using them and see no increase. I know some woman say that they do - so I think it is pretty individualized. Good for you for researching - PCOS is sadly - still a very misunderstood disorder. The more you can learn the better you will do.

Sucralose, sold under the brand name Splenda, is a molecule of sucrose (sugar) where 3 hydrogen atoms are replaced with 3 chlorine atoms. This makes it unusable to the human body. Sucralose does not effect glucose levels because the chlorine atoms make it impossible to be used for energy. However, with all the new products by Splenda for baking and such, read the package to see if the sucralose has been cut with dextrose. Sucralose is 600 times as sweet as sugar and is cut with Maltodextrin in order to make the measuring of Splenda in baking similar to that of sugar. Dextrose is added to assist in the cooking properties, making the Splenda food rise similiar to foods baked with sugar.

The point is this, Splenda will not affect glucose levels as long as it is consumed in moderation. There is still debate on the effects of using too much artificial sweeteners because this made cause the body to still crave carbs.

Hi. I saw a nutritionist who told me that even though artificial sweeteners don't directly affect your glucose levels, the brain thinks it's real sugar and triggers the release of insulin. This excess insulin results in insulin resistance. I'm not sure if it's really true or just a theory. I use splenda quite a bit with water and lemon juice, and I am still trying to shake my diet coke habit. I did do without it for several months last year and never lost weight. So I'm still running into brick walls no matter what I do.

I have heard the same thing as well from several different doctors. The artificial stuff also stays in your system longer which can make you crave and sometimes eat more sugary things than eating the real sugar in the first place.

I was reading a low-carb book (either South Beach or one of the Atkins books) that sited research finding insulin release for some people after some artificial sweeteners. Aspartame was one they said appeared to trigger insulin release in some people, but apparently the research found that Splenda and some others apparently had no result on insulin release in the current research. If there's a newer study that has found that Splenda can trigger insulin release, I've not read of it yet.

There are a lot of valid arguments on both sides as to whether the sugar substitues are more likely to help or hinder, but I think this may just be one of those "your mileage may vary" things, that a person has to decide for themselves based on what works for them.

The thing to remember concerning science and food is that we, as food scientists, are continuously studying the effects that different substances have on the body. My brother told me of a report on Good Morning America last week that stated a study had been released that showed consumption of artificial sweeteners made rats overweight. So, being the scientist that I am, I found the APA Press release on the study. The ironic thing was that the minute that press release was made public, there was a attention drawn to review discussing the benefits of using sugar substitutes which was published only a year ago. There will always be one group to say one thing and another to dispute it. If you interested in reading both publications, I have placed the web addresses below.

Happy Reading

apa.org/releases/sweeteners0208.html?imw=Y
nature.com/ejcn/journal/v61/n6/abs/1602649a.html

Splenda (though they claim 'it's made from sugar') is actually a biowarfare chemical and is linked to MS. That's something the bigwigs don't want you to know. Just Google "Splenda health concerns" or something along those lines and you will see thousands of web pages dedicated to exposing its dangers. I've had great success with Stevia- a natural sweetener that comes from the Stevia plant- no chemicals or processing. You may want to try that. It's hard to avoid foods with sucralose added, but hey- if it didn't come from the ground then it shouldn't go in our mouths! Lemon and water is much safer for our bodies than a calorie-free chemical cocktail!

Stevia may be natural, but it may not be without dangers. Lab animal studies raise concerns of cancer and reproductive disorders in male lab animals.

Much of the "information," regarding artificial sweeteners is pure hoax. So thousands of websites mean nothing if the information is pure scare tactic fiction. Track back the information (when on the rare occasion it not too vague to do so) and you generally find dead ends - quotes from people who never existed at universities that have never done sweetener research, etc. Snopes and other debunker sites are a good first step in trying to verify "scientific" scare research. It is very important to remember that anyone can say anything on the internet, and the "scarier" it is, the more likely it will be passed on and appear "thousands" of times - doesn't make it true.

Taken from article citated below

"Sucralose:
Sucralose was discovered by British researchers in 1976. It is made from sucrose by a process that substitutes 3 chlorine atoms for 3 hydroxyl groups on the sucrose molecule. Although sucralose is made from sugar, the human body does not recognize it as a sugar and does not metabolize it; therefore, it provides no calories. Sucralose is about 600 times sweeter than sugar, and it is heat-stable during cooking and baking. It can be used in a wide variety of foods and beverages. Sucralose does not promote tooth decay. It is sold in the U.S. under the brand name Splenda®. The USFDA approved sucralose for use in 15 types of foods and beverages in 1998 (USFDA 1998c). In 1999, the USFDA approved sucralose as a “general purpose” sweetener, meaning that it can be used in all categories of foods and beverages (USFDA 1999). The ADI (acceptable daily intake) for sucralose in the United States is 5 mg/kg body weight/d; the estimated daily intake for 90th percentile consumers, as calculated by USFDA, is 1.6 mg/kg body weight/d (USFDA 1999). Sucralose has been approved by the JECFA (JFECFA 1991b) and by authorities in approximately 80 countries. The European SCF approved its use in 2000 (SCF 2000b).

The process by which sucralose earned approval by these authorities is typical of the lengthy and detailed evaluation that new food additives must undergo in modern times—a process that, in this instance, required more than 100 scientific studies. Many of the safety studies that were conducted during the course of this evaluation were published in a supplement to volume 38 of the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology in 2000. The establishment of an ADI for sucralose required some additional research beyond the routine studies ordinarily carried out to evaluate the safety of a food additive. These studies were necessary because it was unclear whether reductions in food intake and weight gain that occurred in rats fed high doses of sucralose were due to true toxicity or to reduced palatability of the diet. (A similar situation occurred during the evaluation of neotame, discussed previously.) The supplementary research is described in 2 published reports (Grice and Goldsmith 2000; Mann and others 2000) and is reviewed in detail in USFDA approval document for sucralose (USFDA 1998c).

Sucralose is considered safe for all segments of the population, including people with chronic health problems such as diabetes. A 3-mo study of 128 people with diabetes, in which sucralose was administered at a dose approximately 3 times the maximum estimated daily intake, showed no adverse effects on any measure of blood glucose control (Grotz and others 2003). This study resolved questions raised by the equivocal results of an earlier, smaller study in people with diabetes. The earlier study has not yet been published. However, its findings and implications were reviewed in detail in both the USFDA and European SCF approval documents for sucralose (USFDA 1998c; SCF 2000b). In the years since sucralose was approved, many food and beverage products have been reformulated to contain it, often with considerable publicity.

During this time, concerns about the sweetener’s safety have been raised on various Internet sites, especially those that also express concerns about aspartame. As is often the case when a highly publicized food ingredient comes on the market, a few individuals have attributed common symptoms such as gastrointestinal upsets or rashes to its use, without fully appreciating that temporal associations between common symptoms and the consumption of specific food ingredients may simply be coincidences. Other people have expressed concerns about sucralose because of a general suspicion of synthetic food additives.

As one Web site (wholefoods.com/healthinfo/sucralose) put it, “Sucralose is a chlorinated compound. Other classes of chlorinated molecules include pesticides.” In the eyes of some consumers, such a “similarity” is enough to prove that a substance is harmful. A person not knowledgeable about chemistry could easily assume that poisonous chlorine gas is related to other chlorinated chemicals, thus making them equally toxic. The practice of chlorinating drinking water is accepted worldwide and the recognized harm it does is not to consumers but only to the dangerous microorganisms that may be carried by the water. A number of life-saving drugs are effective only because of the inclusion of chlorine molecules in their structures. The most widely consumed chlorinated substance, of course, is table salt, which by weight is about one half chlorine. So the upshot is that chlorinated sucrose is not the chlorinated pesticide a non-chemist or a chemophobe may make it out to be. USFDA experts and their consultants who have given the stamp of approval for sucralose have combed the literature for evidence of adverse effects on health. They have found none to be concerned about. The current controversy over calling sucralose a sucrose product, a white sugar derivative, an agricultural product, or “natural” is an issue of marketing nomenclature that may require resolution by a court of law if there is intended harmful malice or inadvertent mislabeling under the FDC Act. It does not reflect any safety concern."

Citation:
Kroger, M., Meister, K., & Kava, R. (2006). Low-calorie Sweeteners and Other Sugar Substitutes: A Review of the Safety Issues. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 5(2), 35-47.

Like kaplods said, websites can and mostly likely will say whatever it is they think you want to hear. This article is based on hundreds of scientific experiments...

The studies for asparatame (sucralose) were funded by the companies who wanted to buy in on it. As for chlorine, the amounts found in drinking water (along with flouride) are not safe. Why do we have Brita filters that advertise removing these harmful chemicals? Flouride was introduced in drinking water after there was a rat infestation in NYC and they didn't know what to do with the leftover rat poison (flouride) so they put it in water, thinking it was good for people's teeth. It is good for people's teeth, but shouldn't be swallowed.

It's just amazing the commercials for Splenda, showing kids eating it everyday and smiling. It's just sick. They're going to grow up on it. And I'm more quick to believe consumers reporting adverse affects via the internet rather than believe corporations' marketing campaigns. They want my money and don't care about whether I live or die. That's why I think it's our responsibility to do our own research and take care of what we put in our bodies.

The issue of funding cannot be denied in the scientific community. However, contrary to your belief, we are not out to poison the world. Our job is to try to feed and protect this very very populated global community. And scientists fight to given the world real answers to their questions and problems. Food scientists are trying to fight malnutrition and starvation that is occurring all over the world, even in the developed nations. Every year the amount of farm land decreases while the number of mouths to feed increase. We may not always get it right, but at least we trying.

Artificial sweeteners were developed to allow those with glucose and insulin problems to enjoy products (home made or commercial) that normally contain sugar. It is one's own personal decision to use them. The danger is spreading information that is not validated and, for all one knows, completely made up. That can be dangerous.

Aspartame and sucralose are two completely different sweeteners. It's like saying white sugar (sucrose) is the same as fruit sugar (fructose). Completely different structure and completely different effect on the body. All the rumors that emerged a few years ago about aspartame being harmful was proven false. But the media doesn't share that with the public, because it is not sensational enough.

As for the water filters, they mostly play up the removal of lead. The addition of fluoride in our water is the number one reason the majority of our population doesn't have false teeth by their 30's.

I noticed that you are very "anti-chemical". I hate to be the one who tells you this but everything is composed of chemicals. Water is di-hydrogen oxide. You are composed of primarily di-hydrogen oxide and carbon. Your stomach digests food with gastric acid that is composed of primarily hydrochloric acid (hydrogen and chlorine) with a little potassium chloride and sodium chloride mixed in. We are are all walking units of chemicals. Diseases and disorders are a result of the chemical balance in our body not being correct. With IR, our bodies make too much insulin, which by the way is a series of amino acids (the building blocks of our body). Amino acids are composed of hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and even sulfur.

That is all I going to say on this subject. I have presented the research for those interested in reading it. Time for me to continue with my own research.

Human beings have an incredible tendency to want to simplify information in order to digest it and understand their world. The problem is the simplification often destroys most of the "truth" in the information.

natural = good, manmade = bad
if a little is good, a lot is better
if a lot of people say it, it must be true
if it hasn't hurt anyone I know it must be safe
(my grandfather -smoked, drank, ate fatty foods, worked in a coal mine, never brushed his teeth - whatever- and was healthy til the day he died at 104, so I know it doesn't cause any harm)

It isn't that simple, and it never will be.