Sugar Substitutes - Good or Bad

[Kristofor]

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?

It's actually Nature that doesn't like those words... For %99.999 of the time people have been around starving to death was a relatively common event, and malnourishment was incredibly common. For almost all of history nature would dictate that people eat as much as they can and waste as little energy as possible. The consumption portion of the equation really only changed for large portions of the population in the last 100-200 years.

A diet that reduces your chance of have having cancer by 75% at age 50 didn't give you much expected benefit when the average life expectancy was under 30. So, now we need to fight the wetware and eat what we know is good for us intellectually rather than what our body "knows" is good for us historically.

[cabinetman]

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.

It may be small talk for some. This is the news article I first saw:
.

.
It made me Google "Dangers of sweeteners", which I found the link in my OP. I have used sweetener since the early 70's, the days of Sweet'N Low being the prime sugar substitute. I did so because diabetes was prevalent in my family. I read the reports then about the lab mice that croaked on that stuff. I'm sure if you gave a 4.5 oz mouse 175 packets of Sweet'N Low a day it would croak.

Anyway, When Equal came out, I switched to that. According to the news Q&A posted above (with references BTW), problems with the urinary system made me think. Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that about 8 years ago I was diagnosed with bladder cancer. Gee, I wonder if there could be a connection. Fortunately, I survived the disease after surgeries. I don't know if artificial sweeteners had anything to do with it, but it's sure one heckuva coincidence. Maybe some of the warnings should be heeded.
.

[jking]

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?

Back in the 80's when they really started talking about saturated fat, my mother had cooked almost exclusively with lard. We would have a hog butchered each year & she would render the fat & can lard for cooking. She quit using lard on a regular basis because they said the saturated fat in lard would cause high cholesterol levels. She was afraid she'd been slowing killing us. When she & my dad went in for their first cholesterol check, they both checked out fine. My dad's cholesterol was around 140, mom's was around 160.

I grew up on a farm & hard work was the name of the game. Plenty of exercise, & we grew most of our own food. With all of the wonderful medical research that's been done over the years, I think things are so interconnected, we may never fully understand how many factors are in play.

[Ej101]

From The American Association of Occupational Health Nurses Journal, a scientific peer reviewed journal, June 2008, Vol. 56, No. 6, pg 251-259.

"Sucralose (Splenda) was accidentally discovered in 1976 when...a British sugar companywas looking for ways to use sucrose as a chemical intermediate...A graduate student misunderstood a request for "testing" of a chlorinated sugar as a request for "tasting"..."

It's a good article called "The potential toxicity of artificial sweeteners."
Gives history, chemistry and metabolism, toxicology and more for Saccharin (Sweet n Low), Aspartamine (NutraSweet, Equal), Acesulfame-K (Sweet One), Sucralose (Splenda) Neotame (used in a lot of stuff).


If anyone is actually interested i can email them the PDF. drop me a PM.

[dkerfoot]

Back in the 80's when they really started talking about saturated fat, my mother had cooked almost exclusively with lard.

The funny thing is, do you know what the primary substitute for lard was? Trans fats! Thanks for the helpful advice nutritionists and dietary scientists...

If we all worked and ate like farmers from the early 20th century, without using tobacco or getting sucked into machinery, we'd all live a lot longer.

[docrowan]

[QUOTE=Mr__Bill;421214]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.
[QUOTE]

Agreed. Please note, I'm not trying to pick a fight with cabinetman (the OP) or anyone else who doesn't like artificial sweeteners. I choose to use sweeteners, but I understand the position of those who have concerns. But I do have a problem with the article contained in the OP.

No sources quoted. She mentioned "studies in Europe". Funded by who, studying what, on whom (or what), for how long, under what conditions, with what dosage, etc, etc. This newspaper article has less value than the posts on this website. At least one can respond to the post and ask further questions of the poster. (As is being done in this very thread.)

I remember reading an article about dihydrogen oxide, it is present in virtually every home in America despite the fact that is known to cause thousands of deaths every year around the world. It is made up of extremely flammable and explosive components that have applications in such dangerous fields as rocket fuel and welding torches. It is used in the manufacture of sulphuric acid. The article went on and on with alarming and absolutely true warnings about this substance that was not regulated by the FDA or the EPA.

Of course, it was talking about good 'ole H2O, or water.

[cabinetman]

Agreed. Please note, I'm not trying to pick a fight with cabinetman (the OP) or anyone else who doesn't like artificial sweeteners. I choose to use sweeteners, but I understand the position of those who have concerns. But I do have a problem with the article contained in the OP.

No sources quoted. She mentioned "studies in Europe". Funded by who, studying what, on whom (or what), for how long, under what conditions, with what dosage, etc, etc. This newspaper article has less value than the posts on this website. At least one can respond to the post and ask further questions of the poster. (As is being done in this very thread.)

I just have to say it's not that I don't like artificial sweeteners, I do like them, Splenda in particular. Your rant for justification of any dangers can be answered very easily. I did quite a bit of searching today, and found many MD's, nutritionists, and Pharmacists (as in the news Q&A) that speak against artificial sweeteners. Funny thing though, in all my searching today on the subject, I didn't find one single testimonial, study, or report that says they are good for for consumption or that there was no danger whatsoever. If you can provide some of those good reports, I'd like to read them.

Both myself and LOML experience some of the side effects that are reported, and we plan to stay off of artificial sweeteners, to conduct our own test. We try very hard to do things that will benefit our health. Maybe this is one thing that we don't do that might make a difference.
.

[pelligrini]

I heard something on NPR within the last week or two about cavity prevention and some types of artificial sweeteners.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=106347234

[Mr__Bill]

[QUOTE=docrowan;421351][QUOTE=Mr__Bill;421214]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.

Agreed. Please note, I'm not trying to pick a fight with cabinetman (the OP) or anyone else who doesn't like artificial sweeteners. I choose to use sweeteners, but I understand the position of those who have concerns. But I do have a problem with the article contained in the OP.

No sources quoted. She mentioned "studies in Europe". Funded by who, studying what, on whom (or what), for how long, under what conditions, with what dosage, etc, etc. This newspaper article has less value than the posts on this website. At least one can respond to the post and ask further questions of the poster. (As is being done in this very thread.)

I remember reading an article about dihydrogen oxide, it is present in virtually every home in America despite the fact that is known to cause thousands of deaths every year around the world. It is made up of extremely flammable and explosive components that have applications in such dangerous fields as rocket fuel and welding torches. It is used in the manufacture of sulphuric acid. The article went on and on with alarming and absolutely true warnings about this substance that was not regulated by the FDA or the EPA.

Of course, it was talking about good 'ole H2O, or water.

Yup! I had a problem with the article and not with the idea that artificial sweeteners could be bad for you. I have read a lot, some perhaps reputable sources, that speaks on both sides of the issue.

That being said, the article was in my opinion all around lazy. The author couldn't be bothered taking the effort to put some hard facts in writing. The publisher let it slide rather than taking the effort to send it back for more. The really lazy ones are the readers who, unwilling to put in the effort to actually think about what is written just accept what is there and are happy being an informed public.

Now I'm no taking aim at you CMan. I know you like to toss things out there and then watch the fur fly. It is after all, fun to watch and sometimes to stir things up a bit too.

And now to add to it some more. I hear the real problem with soda is not the sugar or artificial sweeteners but with the carbonation!

Bill, ah that bubbly sweetness....

[docrowan]

Cabinetman,

I'm sorry I didn't mean to rant. I certainly don't mean to be disrespectful to you or question your decision. I don't advise others to use or not use artificial sweeteners. (Side note: I am not a doctor of any kind, it's just a nickname from school because I was smart and wore glasses. I've recently added this to my profile information because I would not want to mislead anyone.) I use artificial sweeteners with my coffee, colas, and unsweet tea because I prefer to chew my calories. The only drinks I like without sweetener are skim milk and seltzer, both of which I drink almost every day. I don't much care for plain water except when I've been in the yard all day.

I've never run across any studies, information, or talking heads saying artificial sweeteners promoted good health. However, I can say the same for high-fructose corn syrup, refined cane sugar, and brown sugar, all popular drink sweeteners that are more or less "natural", although none exist without some form of processing. I seriously doubt you'll find a study stating that cane sugar is good for consumption and poses no danger whatsoever. In fact, I have run across studies that state overuse of cane sugar will lead to obesity, diabetes, and tooth decay. The only sweetener I can say I've ever seen some advocacy for as being of health benefit is honey (which, of course, is a totally natural product).

It seems that you made your decision based on a lot of factors including your illness and a lot of study. However, the particular article you selected to include in your original post was a pet peeve of mine - short, sensational, and lacking in balance and supporting details. The relative safety of artificial sweeteners is a complex subject that has many facets. The reporter didn't even narrow her article down to just one sweetener. It was the article and the lack of detail that I took issue with in my previous post. The title of your thread "Sugar Substitutes - Good or Bad" invites comment from members and the back and forth that you sparked has already been more informative than the actual article. It would have been so easy for the reporter to have included a reference to and quote from some scientific journal, such as Ej101 did in his post. I feel the reporter was being lazy and sloppy in order to meet a deadline.

If you feel I was attacking you or your position I sincerely apologize. It was not my intent.

Edit: I didn't see Mr Bill's post until after I posted this, but it appears we are tracking the same thought.

[cabinetman]

Erik - An interesting article about tooth decay. I don't know how widely xylitol is used in food products, but the next time I want to sweeten my coffee, I'll drop in a stick of gum.


Chris - I didn't take your reply as confrontational. I can understand the feasibility of possible harm to some people ingesting laboratory created foods. I can also understand the liability involved in negative testing results made available to the public.

LOML and I are goin' on the wagon for a while and see if some of those side effects disappear. I'll definitely report results one way or another.
.