Splenda

Nutrition
41

[quote]Watson2K5 wrote:
Since when does natural = safe?

I have some mushrooms growing in my yard. I’m gonna cook em up for dinner cause they’re natural![/quote]

good point - i agree that not everything that’s natural is safe. but based on the widespread global usage of stevia, the fact that there are no documented dangers of consuming it (unlike fda-approved aspartame), that it has been studied (though it could warrant more studies, i’ll admit), and that i don’t trust the fda as far as i can throw it, i think stevia’s the best option for a low-cal stevia.

plus, it has no GI, doesn’t increase appetite (again, unlike aspartame) and in its unrefined form, it actually has a balancing effect on blood sugar. plenty of people are content consuming sucralose. personally, i’ve chosen not to consume any artificial sweeteners.

42

[quote]Jinx Me wrote:
Watson2K5 wrote:
Since when does natural = safe?

I have some mushrooms growing in my yard. I’m gonna cook em up for dinner cause they’re natural!

good point - i agree that not everything that’s natural is safe. but based on the widespread global usage of stevia, the fact that there are no documented dangers of consuming it (unlike fda-approved aspartame), that it has been studied (though it could warrant more studies, i’ll admit), and that i don’t trust the fda as far as i can throw it, i think stevia’s the best option for a low-cal stevia.

plus, it has no GI, doesn’t increase appetite (again, unlike aspartame) and in its unrefined form, it actually has a balancing effect on blood sugar. plenty of people are content consuming sucralose. personally, i’ve chosen not to consume any artificial sweeteners.

[/quote]

oops, at the end of my first sentence I obviously meant to say “I think stevia’s the best option for a low-cal sweetener.”

Sorry, haven’t left the building yet, because last time I checked these forums were meant to inspire polite, respectful debate and exchanges of ideas.

I’m not arguing that people shouldn’t eat splenda. I simply explained my reasons for not using it, and suggesting an alternative. I haven’t found stevia to be ‘nasty’ when used in proper amounts (it’s 300 times sweeter than sugar, so obviously the measurements won’t be the same). But if you don’t like it, hey, that’s okay!

And out of curiosity, why does a little difference of opinion so easily encourage people to degrade the dialogue to basic insult-hurling? Why are people on both sides of the debate so threatened by the idea that others might have different opinions?

Who cares, is anyone forcing you (or me) to change? We can all choose to open our minds to new information or not, and based on that information, we can choose to judge whether change is warranted or not.

43

A combined chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study of sucralose in Sprague-Dawley rats.

Mann SW, Yuschak MM, Amyes SJ, Aughton P, Finn JP.

McNeil Specialty Products Company, 501 George Street, New Brunswick, NJ 08903, USA.

The chronic toxicity and potential carcinogenicity of sucralose was evaluated by exposing Sprague-Dawley rats to dietary concentrations of this low-calorie sweetener both in utero and for up to 104 weeks following parturition. The rats assigned to the toxicity phase of this investigation were administered diets containing either 0% (control), 0.3% (3000 ppm), 1.0% (10,000 ppm) or 3.0% (30,000 ppm) sucralose. Each treatment group comprised 30 male and 30 female rats, of which 15 males and 15 females were sacrificed after 52 weeks of treatment. The surviving rats were killed following 78 weeks of sucralose administration. In the carcinogenicity phase of this investigation, groups of 50 male and 50 female rats were administered dietary sucralose at concentrations of 0% (control 1), 0% (control 2), 0.3%, 1.0% or 3.0% for 104 weeks. Evaluation of the data obtained from the two phases of this study showed that sucralose was not carcinogenic. Sucralose did not adversely affect the survival or clinical condition of the rats, and there were no toxicologically significant findings. Group mean body weight gain and food consumption were significantly decreased in a dose-dependent manner in sucralose-treated rats throughout the treatment period as compared to the controls. The primary effect of sucralose on food consumption, and secondarily on body weight gain, was established in later studies to be due to the fact that diets containing high concentrations of sucralose are unpalatable to rats. These subsequent studies established that the reduction of body weight gain seen in previous rat studies using sucralose in the diet at concentrations of 1% and below resulted from reduced food intake as a direct consequence of the unpalatable nature of sucralose. Similarly, at concentrations of 3% in the diet, it was shown that approximately 95% of the effect on body weight gain could be attributed to the reduction in food intake due to the reduced palatability of the diet, the remainder apparently due to a physiologic response to the high concentrations of non-digestible sucralose in the rats’ diet. Complete toxicological evaluations of gavage studies with histopathological evaluations demonstrated that even at the 3% dietary level, toxicity was not responsible for the small body weight gain decrement. Gross and histopathologic examinations revealed that the administration of sucralose affected neither the types nor incidence of the tumours observed. The incidences of some non-neoplastic findings were statistically significantly increased in the sucralose treated groups relative to the controls. These included: renal pelvic epithelial hyperplasia in all female treatment groups, renal pelvic mineralization in females administered the intermediate or highest dietary concentrations of sucralose, adrenal cortical haemorrhagic degeneration in high-dose group female rats, and the histopathologic incidence of cataracts at necropsy in high-dose group male rats. The non-neoplastic findings that occurred were of no toxicological significance since they were either spontaneous findings commonly observed in aged rats of this strain or the physiological response to high dietary levels of a poorly absorbed compound.

PMID: 10882819 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

44

Fahd, since you decided to revive the post, thanks for doing it by posting an actual, fact-based study. Single studies are always going to be limited in their scope, but I’d certainly prefer to interpret facts rather than reading ego-inspired insults and name-calling.

45

Wow,
very interesting.When I went over to England I heard they banned aspartame.

46

Ok, quick Q. I was under the impression that Splenda is just an enantiomer of sucrose. Is this true, or am I thinking of another artificial sweetener?