Im curious cuz i did read about surcrose at sticky...and was wondering if it okay to use it in food i eat. Cuz when i did surcrose on google.com, theres like bunch of website that says splenda isnt safe???
|
Thread: splenda okay???
-
12-17-2006, 10:14 AM #1
-
12-17-2006, 10:55 AM #2
-
12-17-2006, 11:23 AM #3
-
12-17-2006, 11:26 AM #4
-
-
12-17-2006, 11:36 AM #5
-
12-17-2006, 11:47 AM #6
I use it too.. and aspartame... All in moderation... I try hard not to eat too much, thought sometimes I eat a lot in one day.. Still not as much as the rats in most studies :P LOL
I read a book that was published on this subject... It honestly failed to convince me.
But I dont want to start or continue a controversial discussion about splenda as it seems people are dead set on whatever argument and position they have...Dr. ReefPicker (PhD)
-Not a Dr. in Nutrition or any other Human Biology Field-
Fish Scientist / Computer Geek / Gymaholic
---------------------------------------------------------
Ovolactate Pescaterian and scientist.
-
12-17-2006, 12:07 PM #7
its hard to escape it these days. gotta say i drink diet mountain dew all the time, its one of my vices. but:
in my opinion natural sugar will always be your best option compared to artificial sweeteners. they dont know the long term effects of any of the new things created in the last 20-30. we are guinea pigs. stick with what your body knows, natural foods that have been on earth for thousands of years.
-
12-17-2006, 02:08 PM #8
-
-
12-17-2006, 02:14 PM #9
-
12-17-2006, 02:54 PM #10
-
12-17-2006, 03:10 PM #11
- Join Date: Feb 2006
- Location: Saint Louis, Missouri, United States
- Age: 41
- Posts: 1,000
- Rep Power: 234
just to be clear...splenda has multiple chlorine molecules in each molecule of sucralose (not sucrose...thats table sugar). They are in place of hydroxyl groups that are normally attached to the carbon ring.
This way the eznymes that normally handle sugar molecules can't use the sucralose molecules as a substrate. The powder stuff does have nutritive sweetners in it remember. It contains maltoD and dextrose to bulk it up. I think there are like 24 grams of sugar per cup of splenda powder.
-
12-17-2006, 04:51 PM #12
Yeah I read it in a book that each splenda package is like 99% sugar LOL Something like 3 calories per package actually... This is coming from a book thats making the case against splenda... I thought, oh well, that means that the amount of splenda we are consuming its sooooooo small.... And then somewhere else in the book it said that most splenda is excreted, untouched.
But I agree, natural is better. I see splenda as a shortcut to keep my sugar consumption as low as I can. I use it only when I get starbucks coffee.Dr. ReefPicker (PhD)
-Not a Dr. in Nutrition or any other Human Biology Field-
Fish Scientist / Computer Geek / Gymaholic
---------------------------------------------------------
Ovolactate Pescaterian and scientist.
-
-
12-17-2006, 05:28 PM #13
-
12-17-2006, 05:34 PM #14
LESS TALKING, MORE READING
http://www.splendaexposed.com/
http://www.mercola.com/article/aspar...fety_study.htm
my fathers co-worker died from brain cancer after just 1-2 diet cokes a day for about 8 months.....Last edited by Illinibball4evr; 12-17-2006 at 05:38 PM.
-
12-17-2006, 05:46 PM #15
-
12-17-2006, 06:39 PM #16
I found this on wikipedia. It does sound more reasonable than those claims about splenda causing brain tumprs after 8 months of consumption
Sucralose has been accepted by several national and international food safety regulatory bodies, including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Joint Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization Expert Committee on Food Additives, The European Union's Scientific Committee on Food, Health Protection Branch of Health and Welfare Canada and Food Standards Australia-New Zealand (FSANZ). The acceptable daily intake for sucralose is 9 mg/kg of body weight per day.[2] (Note that Splenda is mostly maltodextrin.)
"In determining the safety of sucralose, FDA reviewed data from more than 110 studies in humans and animals. Many of the studies were designed to identify possible toxic effects including carcinogenic, reproductive and neurological effects. No such effects were found, and FDA's approval is based on the finding that sucralose is safe for human consumption."[3]
-
-
12-17-2006, 06:46 PM #17
-
12-17-2006, 06:48 PM #18
-
12-17-2006, 07:00 PM #19
if you honestly think i made that up, there's really nothing i can do to prove it to you.
anyways, im not coming too your funeral, and I suggest you leave your ego at the door and at least attempt to reduce the level of your ignorance. God did not intend for you to eat man made garbage such as artifical sweetners.
-
12-17-2006, 07:50 PM #20
-
-
12-17-2006, 09:24 PM #21
-
12-17-2006, 10:07 PM #22
-
12-17-2006, 11:22 PM #23
-
12-17-2006, 11:31 PM #24
-
-
12-18-2006, 05:50 AM #25
- Join Date: Aug 2006
- Location: Indiana, United States
- Age: 50
- Posts: 6,638
- Rep Power: 1667
Your fears are unfounded
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...ight=aspartame
As far as someone dying of cancer because of it, that's nonsense. I'm terribly sorry for your loss, but doctors still don't know what causes cancer, only that certain lifestyles contribute to a higher rate."For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 8:38,39
"You've got more definition than a dictionary." -me
Current Ignore List (for consideration's sake :D ): Ancients, ImproperOne, A-GAME
Bookmarks