Read an article in the paper this morning about the possibility of side effects from sugar substitutes. We both use Splenda in our drinks and coffee. After reading this, no more.
.
I had a 100 year old neighbor, that I used to do things for (passed just before her 101 birthday a few years ago). She talked about all the things she had seen in three centuries.
Talking about all the foods they used to eat growing up (chicken cooked in lard, etc), that people freak out over today. They eat meat less often, and grew a lot of their own food (I believe sugar is involved with canning).
We keep trying to improve on nature, with its millions of years r&d, while getting lazier with the work smarter not harder (why not both?).
We don't like these words, diet and exercise, very much, do we?
She couldn't tell the difference between the escape pod, and the bathroom. We had to go back for her.........................Twice.
We don't use much in the way of sugar substitutes or sugar. Black coffee, water, milk and occasionally bottled juices. We don't keep soft drinks in the house. We don't drink much alcohol.
To satisfy my sweet tooth, I try to snack on whole fruit in winter and whatever fruit I can get my hands on during the short summer season.
There's some controversy over aspartame and whether it breaks down under heat into other substances that may not be too good for you.
If you want to use artificial sweeteners, the best thing to do is use them in moderation, just like you would sugar.
There is something weird about announcing that Splenda was discovered while looking for a formula for pesticide. Now lets see, - how did they discover it was sweet? Put it to their mouth? Evidently the person was either crazy or knew it wasn't poisonous.
Hank Lee
Experience is what you get when you don't get what you wanted!
I am sure that article got her an 'A' in her creative writing class but a fail in critical thinking.
News hype like that article really bother me. Sensationalized with no hard facts to support her conclusions or references cited. To me it's party small talk.
WE all recognize that what is said is, on some level, true. Just as, don't eat peanut butter because it's used to kill mice (bait in traps). Flour is highly explosive, thus you should not keep it in the home. Are true statements at the beginning but reach a false conclusion.
The real question is not addressed, and that is: Is it better for you to use sugar or the substitutes given that a certain amount of sweet foods are going to be eaten. Telling the public to use less sweeteners is rather like telling them to conserve gas by driving half way to work.
If this makes sense to you then go back and re-read it, my critical thinking was left behind while writing it.
Bill, on the Sunny Oregon Coast, drinking his sweet OJ and eating his fried bacon and eggs.
My problem is I like the taste of Cane Sugar, not just the sweetness of it, there is a flavor there that other sweeteners are lacking. I think if it were not sweet I would still eat it.
I've been aspartame (Nutrasweet) free for about a month now (I think that is about when I posted by Diet Coke detox thread). For over a week I was unable to sleep at night due to incredible pain in my legs. That subsided, now I feel great drinking milk and tap water. And I'm saving a fortune.
I am concerned that the pain I was experiencing was due aspartame leaching out of my body. I don't think it was the caffeine because I had previously stopped using caffeine and never had a problem.
So basically, after drinking diet colas for about 30 years (almost exclusively for 20-25 years), I'm now diet cola free.
I am concerned that the pain I was experiencing was due aspartame leaching out of my body. I don't think it was the caffeine because I had previously stopped using caffeine and never had a problem.
It is my understanding that aspartame metabolized into formaldehyde (or something related). Perhaps what you were feeling was your legs coming back to life
I am diabetic, and I use Splenda. It tastes good, unlike the other artificial sweetners. I will continue to use it. I tire of these articles that have no proof behind them. They give side effects if you are allergic to it, but you can be allergic to many things and have worse consequences. I have a grandson allergic to peanuts, milk, soy, eggs, and other foods. Should we ban them?
Bill
"I just dropped in to see what condition my condition was in."-Kenny Rogers
No citation of scientific sources? So this article is just media hype. Now can I go back to sipping my tea sweetened with Splenda?
Seriously though. I am keenly aware of the dangers of Aspartame, which is why we do NOT drink diet sodas or partake in any product with Aspartame as an ingredient in any quantity.
Due to the problems of Diabetes in LOMLs family, we have chosen to bypass sugar almost entirely and use Splenda.
The hype this writer seems to be trying to whip up is like the old PVC dust collection pipe explosion myth that keeps cropping up on these forums.
There is something weird about announcing that Splenda was discovered while looking for a formula for pesticide. Now lets see, - how did they discover it was sweet? Put it to their mouth? Evidently the person was either crazy or knew it wasn't poisonous.
Somebody probably noticed that, instead of dying, ants threw a party...
It is indeed a shame that all sugar substitutes get lumped into the same kettle. Splenda is a sugar derivative which is why it probably tastes the best of all the substitutes and to the best of my knowledge has not yet been shown to wreck havoc when used in moderation. But then again I guess that can be said for most substances.
Rick
IG: @rslaugh_photography
A sailor travels to many lands, Any place he pleases
And he always remembers to wash his hands, So's he don't gets no diseases
~PeeWee Herman~
The real question is not addressed, and that is: Is it better for you to use sugar or the substitutes given that a certain amount of sweet foods are going to be eaten. Telling the public to use less sweeteners is rather like telling them to conserve gas by driving half way to work.
I'm not sure I agree with your analogy but I absolutely agree with your point. We keep hearing about how bad stuff is for us and yet on average, we're all living a lot longer than our forebears.
I eat plenty of stuff that's bad for me if I eat a lot of it, so I only eat a little. I eat plenty of things that are supposed to be good for me, but they're not the only things I eat. Life would suck without steak, ice cream, beer, wine, bacon, hamburgers, french fries, and fried chicken. Food would have no flavor without salt (which is why it used to be so valuabl).
I ignore the scaremongering or at least take it with a pinch of salt.
Comment