No doubt. And not a misconception that I suffer from, though I can see how my posts might have suggested I did. I mentioned Stevia because my understanding is that as far as non-nutritive sweeteners it is the best option.
1 Like
I became a coffee addict at about 35 years of age and I used Splenda, probably 20 packets a day for years. Before this I had no issue maintaining 12% bf and fairly easily got down to 10% several times. However, when using Splenda it was extremely difficult to maintain even 12% but of course at the time I did not attribute it to Splenda. Also had some fatigue. After reading about the gut issues associated with artificial sweeteners I cut it out and was again able to get to low bf levels.
Of course can’t be sure it was the Splenda, I could do a challenge test but life’s too short.
Are you saying that small chemical modifications can’t result in differences (oftentimes quite large) in the biological response to molecules? You probably know that even enantiomers (mirror image pairs of molecules) can impart drastically different biological responses despite having the exact same atoms connected in the exact same sequence. A well-known example being the enantiomers below, with one causing birth defects and the other being a useful drug.
You are also assuming that, if passed through, it must have been harmless. This is not correct, as compounds can influence a myriad of functions by binding to receptors and disrupting other functions. Just because something isn’t integrated into or degraded by the body doesn’t mean it is inert.
Certainly. Stevia is an isolated compound from plants, like cocaine or caffeine (if you buy caffeine pills). Isolated compounds are obtained through extraction or other processing methods. These compounds often act quite differently than when ingested with their naturally occurring counterparts. This is part of the “ultraprocessed vs whole foods” argument.
All that said, it could be that aspartame and sucralose do not cause any worrisome consequences in the quantities consumed, or at least present a low enough risk to be inconsequential. That said, you and @Chris_Shugart can see that there are compelling enough reasons that many of us choose to avoid them and would like to see alternatives so we could still support your products.
I don’t mean to come across as combative, as I like this site and want to support it. I just wanted to present a different viewpoint. Cheers.
1 Like
Nice! A thalidomide reference! The difference is that (s)- thalidomide is absorbed and binds to a specific gene, thereby creating havoc. As far as we can tell, Sucralose doesn’t bind with anything other than sweetness receptors in the tongue. However, as you point out, there might be some effects we’re yet not aware of, so points to you!
1 Like
The ingredients in Biotest are fine. The real elephant in the room are people who have a little knowledge and have not studied how to evaluate research reports. While it is laudable to read the ingredients, it is more important to understand what they are and comprehend the corresponding test results. If someone believes a compound is bad, they are responsible for reading all the peer-reviewed literature they can to make an intelligent evaluation. T-Nation is fortunate to have Cy Wilson present solid facts with references. But what do I know? I only have a MS degree.
The link you provide states the tests were done in vitro. This means in glass under controlled conditions. Tests like this are done to establish a reason to procure research funding for further examination. It may be interesting, but has little real world significance.
For reference: Caffeine damages human DNA cells in vitro.
A few chunks of frozen fruits can be alternatives to all blender sweeteners.
Banana one day. Blueberries next and so on.
Titanium dioxide is a known oxidizer. Refuse to take it.