So I made the switch from sugar to splenda in my coffee and iced coffee a while ago, but my english teacher recently brought to my attention that just because splenda contains no calories, it may be even worse for my body than sugar. Is this true? I mean, I drink coffee daily and usually put two packets of Splenda in per 16 oz of coffee, which is probably equivilent to over a tablespoon of sugar; but anyway..is there a definitive answer on which of these products is overall better for you?
Thanks a lot!
Cam
|
-
01-01-2012, 02:08 PM #1
Sugar, Splenda, Stevia, Truvia, Equal; Which one is better for you?
-
01-01-2012, 02:19 PM #2
- Join Date: Aug 2011
- Location: New York, United States
- Age: 44
- Posts: 598
- Rep Power: 260
Sorry, but there isn't. What I can say with certainly is that any of them is fine at the low does you're taking in. So, don't worry about it. That's to say, no sugar substitute, at moderate levels, has been proven to be dangerous for you. On the subject of them being worse for you than sugar, that's not proven and most of the negatives there is on the psychological side (It makes you crave more food or people consume excess calories in the end since they think it offsets).
I'd talk to your science teacher about it!
-
01-01-2012, 02:26 PM #3
-
01-01-2012, 02:59 PM #4
-
-
01-01-2012, 03:05 PM #5
- Join Date: Nov 2011
- Location: Tucumcari, New Mexico, United States
- Age: 34
- Posts: 1,091
- Rep Power: 392
Stevia is the best, though it's hard to use since it's many times sweeter than Sugar, and you have to learn hot to adjust its usage.
Truvia is the crappiest form of Stevia out there, though. Personally I use Stevita
I can't remember, but I think Equal is made from Sacchrine, which I believe is the one that's been linked to possible cancer. Sweet 'n' Low uses Aspartame which leads to leg cramps, depression, vision loss, and other issues.
Splenda is a muddy area because it's genetically modified.
out of all of these, stevia is the only one that's actually a natural plant product without modification.
If you don't like the slightly metalic taste of stevia (ONLY noticeable if you use too much, in my opinion), you can try Yucan powder which is the same level of sweetness as sugar, but with a taste similar to molasses. Agave Nectar is a good one, but you have to shop around, because some brands of it are fake/inferior, while some are pure unmodified nectar from the plant."Do you have an erection, man?"
"I just broke a personal record on deadlift."
"And now I have an erection."
-
01-01-2012, 03:14 PM #6
-
01-01-2012, 03:15 PM #7
- Join Date: Aug 2011
- Location: New York, United States
- Age: 44
- Posts: 598
- Rep Power: 260
That doesn't mean anything. The deadliest toxins known to man are all-natural.
The only reason there isn't much negative coverage on stevia is because it's one of the more recent addition to the major sugar-substitute market. The others have been around for decades and there isn't any proof that they're harmful in moderate amounts. So, what's the safer bet? Something that's been around and scrutinized for decades or something that's relatively new (and only considered safe because it's natural?). The answer should be obvious.
GM is harmful? Newsflash: Just about every drug and vaccine you take is a result of genetic engineering. So, if you're on the anti-GM bandwagon, you pretty much have to avoid all modern medicine. Good luck with that.
-
01-01-2012, 03:17 PM #8
-
-
01-01-2012, 03:24 PM #9
-
01-01-2012, 08:11 PM #10
- Join Date: Jul 2009
- Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Age: 36
- Posts: 102
- Rep Power: 184
There was a series of articles on weightology.net approaching this. I've presented a very, very rough overview, but basically the consensus, as above, is that all the negative publicity towards artificial sweeteners doesn't have any solid scientific backing. Let me know if you'd like any clarification on the below points.
Note on ADI (Acceptable Daily Intake) - remember that there is a 100-fold safety factor built into the ADI. In other words, scientists set the ADI by taking the maximum level considered to be safe in animals, and then dividing it by 100.
Stevia: Safe After All (For Most At Least):
The vast majority of evidence indicates that stevia is safe when consumed at amounts below the ADI (4 milligrams of steviol glycosides per kilogram of body weight, per day). However, if you use a lot of stevia, it can be easy to exceed the ADI, so some caution is warranted there. Also, if you have allergies, eczema, or asthma, you may want to be careful with stevia or use another sweetener, as some people with these conditions may be allergic to stevia. Currently, there is not good enough evidence that it will help people with diabetes, other than allowing them to reduce the sugar in their diets.
Saccharin: An Undeserved Bad Reputation:
Overall, the vast majority of evidence indicates that saccharin is quite safe. The bladder cancer risk is limited to rodents, and is non-existent in other species, including humans. While saccharin may have a bitter after-taste, there is nothing bitter about the safety of this sweetener.
The United States Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI, the maximum level considered safe for humans when consumed over a lifetime) is 5 milligrams per kilogram of body weight.
Sucralose = Safe
All of the scientific data indicates that sucralose is safe for long-term consumption by the vast majority of people, when consumed at amounts below the ADI. There are some case reports that sucralose might be a migraine trigger in a very small percentage of susceptible people, but more research is necessary. Overall, there is no substance behind the frequent fear-mongering that goes around on the internet regarding sucralose.
The Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) has set the ADI for sucralose to be 15 milligrams for every kilogram of your body weight.
Ace-K: Summary
The vast majority of evidence indicates that ace-K is safe for consumption when consumed at amounts below the ADI. While there have been some questions about the quality of the long-term cancer studies, the bulk of the evidence currently indicates that there is no cancer-causing effect. Because ace-K has not been on the market as long as sweeteners like aspartame, there is no epidemiological data to confirm the lack of any cancer-causing effect in humans. Overall, though, the risk of ace-K inducing cancer is negligible based on current data. There is some data that suggests that small children may approach the ADI in certain circumstances, so some caution is warranted there. As I constantly preach in my articles, an approach of moderation is likely the best when it comes to sweeteners such as ace-K.
The ADI for ace-K is 15 milligrams per kilogram of body weight.
Aspartame: Neurologically Nice
Aspartame critics have raised the following safety concerns:
Potential methanol toxicity
Elevation of phenylalanine and aspartic acid in the brain, changing neurochemical composition and affecting brain function
Possible neuroendocrine changes derived from phenylalanine and its hydroxylation product, tyrosine
Postulated links between aspartame and epilepsy, brain tumors, and other cancers
It is already evident that #1 is simply not an issue, as the amount of methanol in aspartame is less than the amount of methanol found in fruit and fruit juices.
The fact is that the vast majority of the evidence indicates that aspartame does not cause cancer. However, there is a group of studies from an Italian group of researchers that received a lot of media attention, and this research supposedly showed aspartame to be carcinogenic.
If a substance causes cancer, then there must be a plausible biological mechanism for it do so. As I wrote in part 1 and part 2 of this series, there is no plausible mechanism given aspartame’s composition and the way it is metabolized in the body. Also, if aspartame was carcinogenic, this is what you would see in animal studies:
An increase in tumors beyond the expected spontaneous tumor level
A shift of tumor appearance to a younger age
A dose-response relationship
A higher tumor incidence after transplacental exposure
A trend towards anaplasia (a failure of your cells to differentiate into specialized cells)
Presence of preneoplastic lesions (tissue damage that precedes the development of a tumor)
Multiplicity of tumors in individual animals
Genotoxicity, mutagenicity, and chromo****l abberations (i.e., strong evidence of DNA damage caused by aspartame)
Aspartame does not fulfill any of these criteria. The bottom line is that there is not a shred of credible evidence that aspartame causes cancer. The “aspartame alarmists” are sounding nothing but false alarms.
The bottom line is that there is very little credible scientific data to link normal aspartame use to adverse mood, cognitive, or behavioral changes, or to epileptic seizures. There is some data to suggest that aspartame might be a migraine trigger in a small percentage of susceptible individuals, but the data here remains inconsistent. Overall, aspartame is nice to your neurology.
edit: to be clear, the above summaries are taken directly from the articles and are credited to James Krieger
-
01-01-2012, 08:13 PM #11
-
01-02-2012, 08:28 PM #12
-
-
01-02-2012, 10:05 PM #13
-
01-02-2012, 11:20 PM #14
-
01-02-2012, 11:22 PM #15
-
01-02-2012, 11:24 PM #16Founder of MMDELAD
"Micros Matter Dont Eat Like A Dumba**" (hydrogenated oils, shortening, mono and di-glycerides don't fit in my macros)
Does Not Count Macros Crew
"Think in terms of limits and the result is limitation
Think in terms of progress and the result is progression"
my day:http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=156294333
Training Philosophy to be strong: 1. Pick Weights up off the ground 2. Squat them 3. Push them over your head
-
-
01-02-2012, 11:41 PM #17
-
01-03-2012, 12:01 AM #18Founder of MMDELAD
"Micros Matter Dont Eat Like A Dumba**" (hydrogenated oils, shortening, mono and di-glycerides don't fit in my macros)
Does Not Count Macros Crew
"Think in terms of limits and the result is limitation
Think in terms of progress and the result is progression"
my day:http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=156294333
Training Philosophy to be strong: 1. Pick Weights up off the ground 2. Squat them 3. Push them over your head
-
01-03-2012, 12:11 AM #19
-
01-03-2012, 12:21 AM #20
Sucralose safety:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19464334IIFYM - not even once.
www.AlanAragon.com
-
-
01-03-2012, 12:25 AM #21Founder of MMDELAD
"Micros Matter Dont Eat Like A Dumba**" (hydrogenated oils, shortening, mono and di-glycerides don't fit in my macros)
Does Not Count Macros Crew
"Think in terms of limits and the result is limitation
Think in terms of progress and the result is progression"
my day:http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=156294333
Training Philosophy to be strong: 1. Pick Weights up off the ground 2. Squat them 3. Push them over your head
-
01-04-2012, 08:39 PM #22
Similar Threads
-
Found an aweome sugar substitute
By ajfab88 in forum NutritionReplies: 84Last Post: 05-04-2011, 04:25 AM
Bookmarks