Guest guest Posted September 29, 2003 Report Share Posted September 29, 2003 Allen, no Splenda is not safe - if you put the word Splenda into your search engine it will bring up loads of sites that will tell you it isn't - here is just one of them <A HREF= " http://www.mercola.com/2000/dec/3/sucralose_dangers.htm " >http://www.mercol\ a.com/2000/dec/3/sucralose_dangers.htm</A>. If you don't like Stevia, why not try agave - I use that for everything and it tastes a lot nicer than stevia in my opinion. Marianne > Do you have any information on Splenda? I have heard it is safer than > anything else. I do not like Stevia. > > Thanks > > Allen > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2003 Report Share Posted September 30, 2003 Agave is loaded with sugar. Not good for people who need to cut back on sugars in their diet. I have heard good things about xylitol, but have not yet tried it. Xylitol is much cheaper in larger quantities. And I want to taste it before I buy 5 pounds. Alobar - <marianne2406 Tuesday, September 30, 2003 2:22 AM Re: Splenda Safety > Allen, no Splenda is not safe - if you put the word Splenda into your search > engine it will bring up loads of sites that will tell you it isn't - here is > just one of them <A HREF= " http://www.mercola.com/2000/dec/3/sucralose_dangers.htm " >http:/ /www.mercola.com/2000/dec/3/sucralose_dangers.htm</A>. > > If you don't like Stevia, why not try agave - I use that for everything and > it tastes a lot nicer than stevia in my opinion. > > Marianne > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2003 Report Share Posted September 30, 2003 I haven't tried agave but I do use and love sucanat. It doesn't seem very popular, I'm not sure why. Brenda If you don't like Stevia, why not try agave - I use that for everything and it tastes a lot nicer than stevia in my opinion. " And the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness, quietness and assurance forever. And my people shall dwell in a peaceable habitation, and in sure dwellings, and in quiet resting places. " Isaiah 32:17-18 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2003 Report Share Posted September 30, 2003 Marianne, If you read Mercola's website you gave, he states there are insufficient studies to determine whether sucralose is safe or not. He then proceeds to lead the reader to conclude like you, that it is extremely unsafe. It is a basic problem with logic. He actually makes himself sound foolish. He also on his site has articles that knock Atkins diet referencing articles that it will cause kidney stones and breast cancer etc. but he has other ones that glorify Atkins. On the following site, he states " Unfortunately, Dr. Atkins didn't take his program far enough as he labeled all carbohydrates as bad. " http://www.mercola.com/2003/sep/6/anti_atkins.htm I had this one used on another board by someone who believed that Atkins promotes eating NO carbs. In this same article Mercola concludes leading the reader to believe that Atkins also promotes eating bacon and sandwich meats all the time - neither of these are correct. From my explorations on Splenda, the one fact Mercola states is there are not enough studies to say one way or the other. It may be safe and it may not be safe. Mary - marianne2406 Tuesday, September 30, 2003 2:22 AM Re: Splenda Safety Allen, no Splenda is not safe - if you put the word Splenda into your search engine it will bring up loads of sites that will tell you it isn't - here is just one of them <A HREF= " http://www.mercola.com/2000/dec/3/sucralose_dangers.htm " >http://www.mercol\ a.com/2000/dec/3/sucralose_dangers.htm</A>. If you don't like Stevia, why not try agave - I use that for everything and it tastes a lot nicer than stevia in my opinion. Marianne > Do you have any information on Splenda? I have heard it is safer than > anything else. I do not like Stevia. > > Thanks > > Allen > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2003 Report Share Posted September 30, 2003 I know that some of these people contradict themselves in many articles but I just really wanted to highlight the fact that there have not been enough studies done on the product and also I believe it is as dangerous as aspartame. I have supplied several links, including another by mercola, so that you can see there is enough information to make it a product to avoid. The fact that the food, in this case sugar, is chemically changed would be enough for me to avoid it like the plague. <A HREF= " http://www.mercola.com/2003/aug/23/splenda.htm " >http://www.mercola.com/200\ 3/aug/23/splenda.htm</A> <A HREF= " http://www.drweil.com/drw/app/cda/drw_cda.php?command=TodayQA & pt=Question & \ questionId=64359 " >http://www.drweil.com/drw/app/cda/drw_cda.php?command=TodayQA & \ pt=Question & questionId=64359</A> <A HREF= " http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_39516.asp " >http://www.chattan\ oogan.com/articles/article_39516.asp</A> Marianne > Marianne, > > If you read Mercola's website you gave, he states there are insufficient > studies to determine whether sucralose is safe or not. He then proceeds to lead > the reader to conclude like you, that it is extremely unsafe. It is a basic > problem with logic. He actually makes himself sound foolish. > > He also on his site has articles that knock Atkins diet referencing articles > that it will cause kidney stones and breast cancer etc. but he has other > ones that glorify Atkins. On the following site, he states > > " Unfortunately, Dr. Atkins didn't take his program far enough as he labeled > all carbohydrates as bad. " > http://www.mercola.com/2003/sep/6/anti_atkins.htm I had this one used on another board by someone who believed that Atkins > promotes eating NO carbs. In this same article Mercola concludes leading the > reader to believe that Atkins also promotes eating bacon and sandwich meats > all the time - neither of these are correct. > > From my explorations on Splenda, the one fact Mercola states is there are > not enough studies to say one way or the other. It may be safe and it may not > be safe. > > Mary > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2003 Report Share Posted September 30, 2003 > > > Do you have any information on Splenda? I have heard it is safer than > > anything else. I do not like Stevia. Although tests are not conclusive about longterm safety of ANY artificial sweeteners, I would certainly use splenda before i would use aspartame. I'd even use saccarin before I'd use aspartame. However, splenda is manufactured from sugar - we all know how good sugar is for you. Some people cite that as a safety reassurance, i don't find regular sugar to be safe, so this doesn't reassure me. In addition, the sugar is processed, basically is chlorinated, to keep it from giving you the high glucose boost of regular sugar. I know, for myself, that I don't choose to add chlorine to my system, despite the lack of long-term tests verifying any potential problems. There is a secondary problem with splenda, and with many artificial sweeteners. For many of us, simply the sweet taste, or something in the chemical make-up DOES give us an insulin boost even though it doesn't raise glucose levels. For anyone looking for an artificial sweetener for weight loss purposes, be aware of this - this phenomenon occurs in nearly 50 % of the people who use splenda. It happens with most artiicial sweeteners, but to different degrees. If you get an insulin boost, but have no accessible sugar in your system for it to work on, or are insulin resistant to begin with (which most overweight people are, to some extent) then the insulin turns your system into preservation mode, putting everything you just ate into fat storage. Leaving you with a sugar low in your system, setting off cravings within an hour or two of having had the artificial sweetener. A study was done of overweight people who all worked in one office. Of these people, over a period of three months, those who drank diet drinks at breaks actually gained weight in comparison to those who drank regular sodas. The study observed that those who drank diet drinks would be back to the vending machines for high carb snacks within two hours of drinking a diet soda, and proposed that this was the reason for the weight gain. For some reason, stevia doesn't have this effect on me. I get no insulin boost nor the subsequent low-sugar period when consuming stevia. In regards to taste, many people believe they don't like stevia who have never tasted a good quality stevia. Something can be called 'pure stevia " and still have a tremendous amount of extranous, bitter, plant matter in the substance. I myself don't like the taste of non-extracted stevia - except in certain teas. But there are many different methods of extracting the sweet substnace in stevia. Some of them chemically harmful, from my perspective. Some of them healthier - water extractions are the best. But there is still a problem with exactly what is extracted. The sweet part of the stevia are called steviasides. There are several forms of these steviasides within the plant. The sweetest and least bitter is called rebaudiosides. Japan, where stevia outsells regular sugar, has finetuned the extraction process to produce pure rebaudiosides in a sweetener. They don't export. Their product is however pure sweet - like powdered sugar, can lick it off your finger with no bitterness. The best products available in our country are at least 90 % steviosides, at least 20% rebaudiosides, and are unbleached and naturally processed. there are only a couple companies that produce this quality of stevia, which for me leaves no bitter aftertaste. http://www.cookingwithstevia.com gives a couple sources, as well as much additional information about stevia. as for xylitol - this is an EXCELLENT health product. Not just in terms of dental benefits but in addressing allergies, viruses, etc. Its problematic for weight losers, though is currently being hyped in many low carb weight loss products, as it is in the class of sugar alcohols that don't give an immediate glucose burst. However, unless you are eating TONS of the stuff, though at first your system won't be able to fully metabolize it, so you won't record the sugar calories, very quickly after eating any of this regularly, your liver begins to be able to produce the necessary enzyme for digesting this substance, and you are soon getting the full caloric count digested - albeit in a delayed form, taking several days rather than an immediate glucose burst. If you eat enough of it you do get to a point where your system can't any longer produce enough enzyme to fully digest it again, but the digestive problems that result make it unlikely your're going to " benefit " from this mass level of xylitol consumption. If however you are looking to the xylitol as a healthier replacement for sugar, without worrying about the calories or carbs involved, its an excellent choice, with many benefits healthwise. A newer choice for artificial sweetener is erythritol, a little less sweet than sugar, but something our own bodies produce small amounts of. It falls into the sugar alcohols category, like the xylitol, but not enough studies have been done yet in regards to the long-term metabolism issues to see if there is a similar process to xylitol, where over time more of it is digested. Initially up to 90% of the sugar calories/carbs are excreted untouched. This sweetner doesn't have the digestive problems - bloating, gass, diahrea, that can be caused by poorly digested xylitol, or other of the alcohol sugars. It also doesn't have the added health beneifts of xylitol. For many people on low carb diets the stevia is the only one that doesn't cause the insulin boost after consumption, despite there being no glucose burst. For some poeple even stevia will cause this problem. The less processed sugar alcohols cause less of a problem in this way than does splenda or aspartame, but more of a problem than with stevia. Joy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 1, 2003 Report Share Posted October 1, 2003 Isn Stevia sugar free? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 1, 2003 Report Share Posted October 1, 2003 In a message dated 10/1/2003 3:19:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, Peaches14845 writes: > Isn Stevia sugar free? > Usually. YOu have to read the ingredients. Sometimes with the powdered stevia they have additives. Same goes for the liquid, which often is in an alcohol base. Myra Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 1, 2003 Report Share Posted October 1, 2003 Yes, it is a natural herb, the leaves of which are ground up as a green powder, works for tea and such. Most often what is referred to as stevia though is the extracted steviosides (the sweet part). With a good brand of stevia extract there is little or none stevia/licorice taste. Some people complain of bitterness - usually as a result of a poorer quality stevia extract. There is no sugar, and no glucose surge. No insulin problems. There has been a huge political process around stevia, because it is such an excellent sugar free sweetener. See http://www.cookingwith stevia.com for more info. It is today allowed to be sold as a food, but not as a sweetner. In Japan it outsells regular sugar for sweetner use. Has a LONG history of safety. No calories or carbs in the extract - unless you purchase one with a filler, such as maltodextrin. So check on what you're getting. Joy Peaches14845 wrote: > Isn Stevia sugar free? > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.