csj315
Veteran Author
Jacksonville
Posts:260
Points:6,340
Joined:Jul 2006
|
Message Posted: Aug 11, 2006 7:21:29 PM
i like it too but is expensive
|
Jemac
Champion Author
Florida
Posts:23,777
Points:3,280,030
Joined:Mar 2004
|
Message Posted: Aug 4, 2006 8:31:09 AM
Blue Agave:
Wholesome Sweeteners Organic Raw Blue Agave nectar is a low-glycemic sweetener produced from organically grown and processed Blue Agave (Agave tequilana var. Weber) plants. The "Weber Azul" is a cactus-like plant that grows in the Jalisco region of Mexico; it's been used for more than 5000 years to sustain the region's inhabitants.
Organic Raw Blue Agave offers natural sweetness without the blood sugar spike. This sweet, mild nectar is a perfect multi-purpose sweetener for beverages, fresh fruit and general table-top use. With a glycemic index of 16 or less, it is the preferred sweetener of many diabetics and those trying to control their blood sugar.
|
Jemac
Champion Author
Florida
Posts:23,777
Points:3,280,030
Joined:Mar 2004
|
Message Posted: Aug 4, 2006 8:20:04 AM
VanKY - Re: a past post of yours, my Chem. Engineering experience has been in electroplating and electro-forming, not the pharmaceutical profession, so I have 0% allegiance to them or anyone else like you alleged.
I do not believe in overdosing one's body with un-needed pills and substances, but only take what is needed for my 66 year old body.
|
Jemac
Champion Author
Florida
Posts:23,777
Points:3,280,030
Joined:Mar 2004
|
Message Posted: Aug 4, 2006 8:15:26 AM
For the people that can't take excess sugar due to diabetes, etc, there is little choice of what to use for a sweetener that won't raise blood sugar. So far, Splenda is still minutely consumed by me until I get to the point where my numbers are down enough to warrant something else.
In our everyday eating there is so much sugar in the natural (and un-natural) foods we eat that (I) still have the belief the tiny amounts of un-natural sweeteners are of little harm. Excess of anything is a detriment though and the people consuming (large) amounts of sodas or anything with artificial sweeteners might have a downfall some day.
|
CirrusSF
Sophomore Author
Lansing
Posts:207
Points:48,710
Joined:Jul 2006
|
Message Posted: Aug 1, 2006 12:27:45 AM
Something about it has bad health effects later on down the road, can anyone confirm??
|
Jassy
Rookie Author
Omaha
Posts:14
Points:1,340
Joined:Jul 2006
|
Message Posted: Jul 12, 2006 1:41:58 PM
Lots of people complain about the taste, but I don't think it's that bad.
|
cp23
All-Star Author
Virginia
Posts:563
Points:131,690
Joined:Apr 2006
|
Message Posted: Jul 11, 2006 1:41:23 PM
beter always use natural
|
goldrose1
Champion Author
Cleveland
Posts:11,059
Points:1,947,655
Joined:Feb 2005
|
Message Posted: Jun 27, 2006 8:23:55 PM
Does anyone in Cleveland know where to put hands around a pot of stevia?
|
cheyenne10
Rookie Author
Wyoming
Posts:48
Points:132,195
Joined:Jun 2005
|
Message Posted: Jun 27, 2006 6:41:11 PM
It cracks me up how ignorant people are. Splenda, along with all other artificial sweeteners, are BAD for you. Aspartame breaks down into two wonderful things inside the human body: formaldehyde and ethanol. Yikes! I wouldn't go near that stuff. Splenda is no better for you. Science is not better than nature at making things 'sweet'. My suggestion is for all these stupid fat people to get off their butts and get some exercise instead of artificially cut calories. All these stupid people just looking for an easy way out of things are unaware of the health benefits. When you have time, run a Google search on Splenda or Aspartame. First punch in "health benefits of aspartame". Good luck finding much. Then, punch in "dangers of aspartame". You'd be very surprised in what you find. Make the educated decision for yourself, but I know where I stand.
|
mdskier
Champion Author
Maryland
Posts:10,066
Points:1,808,390
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: Jun 25, 2006 10:44:57 PM
Splenda is nasty chemicals as is Equal.
Nothing natural like sugar as claimed.
Think neurealogical problems have been reported.
Try Stevia instead.
[Edited by: mdskier at 6/26/2006 1:45:14 AM EST]
|
VanKY
Champion Author
Maryland
Posts:13,745
Points:2,768,430
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: May 25, 2006 11:47:52 AM
True enough. And it turns out things work a lot better when we let living plant and animal tissue process those chemicals for us. We call this 'natural' foods. Our bodies have evolved to work well on natural foods. As for those chemicals they whip up in a big vat in an industrial food-processing warehouse somewhere, I say "no thank you!". Aspartame and splenda fall into that category.
|
goldrose1
Champion Author
Cleveland
Posts:11,059
Points:1,947,655
Joined:Feb 2005
|
Message Posted: May 25, 2006 9:47:09 AM
Everything we eat is chemicals!
|
Jemac
Champion Author
Florida
Posts:23,777
Points:3,280,030
Joined:Mar 2004
|
Message Posted: May 23, 2006 7:44:20 AM
VanKY - I understand that back in the 1900's people used to consume more calories (something like 5000 cal. per day), but used to work it off.
Today's fast foods for the fast crowd certainly doesn't do any good for anyone. Just think, 100 year's from now may be total garbage for food (as if it isn't now) unless we get back to the basics.
The food out there is a nutritious as it was back 200 year's ago but we don't eat it enough of the time.
Maybe we will be known as the "misfit" generation?
|
VanKY
Champion Author
Maryland
Posts:13,745
Points:2,768,430
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: May 23, 2006 1:06:21 AM
Dear goldrose1-
You've probably clicked "Ignore" on me already, but go in peace, I wish you well. I could not, in good conscience, fail to say something when I see another person doing something I strongly believe harms them. And there is a *lot* in the food supply today which is harmful. A century ago, prople ate a healthy diet of natural foods, and surprise! They were pretty healthy. Today's diet is over-processed and downright polluted, and is demonstrably harmful. No? Then where did these huge epidemics of diabetes, heart disease, obesity, athsma, and numerous other horrors come from? If you've got the answer, I sure want to hear it. There were very few folks getting those kinds of diseases a century ago. It's the food supply. Eat like people in the late 1900's and you'll feel a lot better in a hurry. BTW those folks did not use splenda. Or lots of sugar, or bad fats, etc. What we eat today is pretty bad.
|
VanKY
Champion Author
Maryland
Posts:13,745
Points:2,768,430
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: May 23, 2006 12:50:48 AM
Jemac-
Simply Great post on all the forms of MSG. Thanks! I'm going to try to memorize that list. A lot of that stuff sounds like what I would avoid instinctively anyway.
|
goldrose1
Champion Author
Cleveland
Posts:11,059
Points:1,947,655
Joined:Feb 2005
|
Message Posted: May 22, 2006 9:03:26 PM
This forum is ranting. I'm leaving for a more postive venue.
|
Jemac
Champion Author
Florida
Posts:23,777
Points:3,280,030
Joined:Mar 2004
|
Message Posted: May 22, 2006 7:58:43 AM
Re MSG...Generally everyone is getting MSG in hidden ingredients of the foods being sold.
I find MSG at practically all restaurants I visit and being very allergic to it (intestinally), I watch out what I eat.
Hidden Names for MSG
Foods always contain MSG when these words are on the label:
MSG (Monosodium glutamate)
Monopotassium glutamate, Glutamate and Glutamic Acid
Gelatin
Hydrolyzed Vegetable Protein
Hydrolyzed Plant Protein & Autolyzed Plant Protein
Sodium Caseinate & Calcium Caseinate
Textured Protein
Yeast Extract, Yeast food or nutrient & Autolyzed YeastFoods made with the following products often contain MSG.
Gravies
Malted Barley (flavor), Barley Malt, and Malt Extract
Most flavorings
Modified food starch
Rice syrup and brown rice syrup
All seasonings (Beef, chicken, pork)
Addition to many Spices and Herbs
Maltodextrin & Malt flavorings
Soy Sauce, soy extract, or soy protein
Lipolyzed butter fat
"Low" or "No Fat" items
Corn syrup and corn syrup solids
Stocks, broths, or bouillions
Milk power, dry milk solids, and protein fortified milk
Carrageenan
Wheat, rice, or oat protein
Citric acid
Anything enriched or vitamin enriched
Protein fortified "anything"
Enzyme modified "anythng"
Ultra-pasteurized "anything"
Fermented "anything"
Spice, gums
Yeast nutrients
Protease enzymes
Pectins
Whey Protein or Whey
Dough Conditioners
MSG, in particular, have been associated with:
burning sensation in the back of the neck, forearms and chest,
numbness in the back of the neck, radiating to the arms and back,
tingling,
warmth and weakness in the face, temples, upper back, neck and arms,
facial pressure or tightness,
chest pain,
headache,
nausea,
rapid heartbeat,
bronchospasm (difficulty breathing) in intolerant people with asthma,
drowsiness,
weakness,
intense cravings for the same foods.
MSG
|
Jemac
Champion Author
Florida
Posts:23,777
Points:3,280,030
Joined:Mar 2004
|
Message Posted: May 22, 2006 7:05:07 AM
VanKY - This statement was not meant to be something Mercola said but statements by various people trying to sell their wares.
"You hear all this garbage about a conspiracy theory "BY DOCTORS", and that there is a cure for most everything out there but they are keeping it secret from us. Pure hogwash!!"
|
Jemac
Champion Author
Florida
Posts:23,777
Points:3,280,030
Joined:Mar 2004
|
Message Posted: May 22, 2006 6:56:00 AM
philber - You seem to have the correct information and I would suspect that you are also correct in that every country has artificial sweeteners in their foods, whether buying from the world supply of foods or inserting it themselves.
|
VanKY
Champion Author
Maryland
Posts:13,745
Points:2,768,430
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: May 22, 2006 1:55:06 AM
Hi, philber-
"It can be assumed that every citizen of Western countries uses artificial sweeteners, knowingly or not."
Respectfully, those who speak in absolutes, as here, are quite often wrong. I'd buy "a lot of folks", or "almost everybody", but certainly not "every citizen". Nope. I'm pretty well informed, and I'm definitely aware of most of the foods and other products they are sneaking artificial sweeteners into- although their creativity, cunningness, and outright gall continue to amaze me at times. I make sure I get little if any dietary artificial sweeteners. I'm not one of the masses who swills soft drinks or 'sports waters', or eats processed foods, canned foods, etc. I'm doing the best I can to avoid these substances.
What I notice particularly keenly is the defeatist tone of the pronouncement above: "It can be assumed... every citizen... knowingly or not." Cut me a break! This is propaganda, plain and simple. Totally defeatist. 'They' have defeated us, so give up, surrender. Drink from their vat of chemicals. Nope! No way buddy- not on your life (or mine!) OTOH the statement does at least have some basis in reality, as the government, in collusion with industry, does allow some pretty dishonest stuff to go on- and one of these is the 'hidden' portion of artificial sweeteners in products one wouldn't expect to find it in, or it gets buried in 'ingredients' such that only a given ingredient need be listed, not that 'ingredient's ingredients'. I think they can be found in, just for example, toothpastes, which are not a food. I'd have to research that. I'm not sure if the toothpaste manufacturers have to fully disclose. It's not 'food', after all.
"A cancer-inducing activity of one of these substances would mean a health risk to an entire population."
Yep. And that's what the loyal opposition is implying. They'll be heard, in time.
Regarding monosodium glutamate (MSG), why on earth would anyone in their right mind routinely consume a fairly powerful diuretic even under doctor's orders, let alone on their own? One should have at least a darned good medical reason! Whenever I have occasionally been tricked into eating some (usually in never-again-visited chinese restaurants), I soon start needing to 'pee' like a race horse. (Diuretics strip water out of the body rapidly) I hate the stuff! I could care less what it is doing to my brain. I wouldn't touch it. I never buy products which contain it (at least if their labeling is honest). I don't get much of it. I can't see why the NIH site wants to link it in the same writing to aspartame. The connection seems tenuous at best. But often, people 'talk past' each other a lot when they're at cross purposes. The article didn't seem to be addressing the charges about aspartame that I've seen leveled in the past. It seems to have zoned in on just one specific detail about the body's processing of "aromatic and the acidic amino acids", and ignored the more frequently leveled charges which include, as I recall, that formaldehyde is released within the body during processing, and it, in turn, breaks down into a couple of other nasties that are harmful. But that's controversial, of course. And I'd have to research that one, too, before I could have much of a debate with anyone. I find it far easier to just avoid questionable stuff. I'm not missing anything by doing so. It's just *not* ruining my life.
As for aspartame, the litany of unscientific, unethical, and overall sleazy work that was done to foist that product on the market is unconscionable. And of course, as soon as FDA approved it for human consumption, the clown at FDA responsible for getting it ramrodded through immediatley jumped ship and got himself a nice, cushy job at Searle, the maker of the stuff. Coincidence? Yeah, sure! It's a darned shame, since there are still good, smart, honorable folks at FDA who want to do the right thing, but the higher level types are about as bought and paid for as they come. It's a totally dysfunctional agency which darned near totally fails to protect the general public. It's in business to help business foist whatever product on the market as they can get away with. The constant stink of scandal hovers over the place. Negative results get 'lost' when studies find negatives about products under evaluation, and they rarely ever see the light of day unless someone hoards and later rats out the data. I don't trust FDA to safeguard my interests. I don't trust the legitimacy of their biased 'science'
I'll pay attention but am not necessarly awed or dazzled when someone in NIH writes that they "performed several PubMed searches of the National Library of Medicine for articles in English about artificial sweeteners". Sounds pretty impressive, doesn't it? But the search is no better than the actual science plus the effectiveness of the search method's ability to find, catalog, and access relevant information. And remember, 'science' consists of only what got done because there were funds available to pay for that science. In these areas, that money comes primarily from companies who seek to have favorable results reported so they are permitted to sell their products. Small wonder that the 'science' tends to be biased and near-blind in favor of 'finding for the plaintiffs', these companies. I view these results with a jaundiced eye, and am not mightily impressed when folks start bandying around such high-sounding language. As the 'stone man' says in Nilsson's "The Point", "...You see what you want to see and you hear what you want to hear". Heh! It's called perception, and perception is intrinsically biased. Don't try to pass it off as knowledge. Knowledge comes at best over time, after quite a body of evidence has been gathered. And that, the article subtly admits, we don't really have yet.
"...a substantial body of published evidence clearly indicates that the brain is not affected by ingestion of aspartame..."
What about the rest of the body? Cancer can strike a lot of different body parts. There are charges about more than just neurological impact. Yeah, and I also trust the fox to guard the chicken coop. There is just way too much anecdotal evidence which strongly suggests to the contrary, and it is not being seriously investigated, for the most part. Insider charges have also been leveled, as I understand it, that negative results have been suppressed from studies submitted for product approval. This industry has a well-established reputation for selective blindness and outright dishonesty, to the extent that harmful products like Vioxx and Rezulin are unleashed on the public, only to be jerked back after folks start getting hurt and killed by them, and the lawsuits start flooding in. I just don't trust these pharma folks. Nope, don't trust them at all.
I believe that in time, the negatives for sucralose (Splenda) will also begin to emerge. I believe that the 'science' used to win approval for sucralose was also biased and incomplete.
|
VanKY
Champion Author
Maryland
Posts:13,745
Points:2,768,430
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: May 22, 2006 12:20:59 AM
Jemac-
Respectfully, your comments about Mercola show that you haven't bothered to try to understand what the man is saying. If you believe that 'doctors' have some sort of 'conspiracy', (according to Mercola), I'd sure appreciate it if you could point me to any specific writings by Mercola where you claim he is so stating. I bet you can't! It is a real stretch to try to compare his beliefs to the theme of the DaVinci Files. I've no intention of reading the book or seeing the movie, BTW, because I don't much care for that conspiracy crap myself.
"...there is a cure for most everything out there but they are keeping it secret from us..."
Rubbish. He's not saying anything remotely like that. Your prejudice is showing through clearly. As I say, if you can't be bothered to try to understand what he actually is saying, and you just make up stuff, as you seem to be doing here, we really can't have much of a meaningful dialog together.
He doesn't "down most doctors, surgeons, and medicine for just homeopathic remedies". He isn't particularly pushing 'homeopathic remedies' per se. He does indeed 'down' the medical establishment, but not for the reasons you are stating or implying. A more accurate portrayal of Mercola is that he is strongly criticizing the *medical paradigm*, the way the medical establishment prefers to treat disease instead of promoting health. He sees them collectively as a bunch of pill-happy, knife-happy people who are killing a lot of folks needlessly. That he *is* indeed saying. And his answer is not so much to go and pop vitamin and mineral pills, enzymes, amino acids, protein concentrates, or herbs, ad nauseum. Instead, he advocates moving out of unhealthy eating, which a majority of Americans do, and trying to get as close as possible to the diet of the last (19th) century, which was demonstrably *not* killing us off as fast as today's 20th century diet is, here in the 21st century.
"Nothing's wrong with little amounts of artificial sweeteners if not overdone by anyone" Perhaps. But how much is "little", anyway? A little bit of arsenic or lead or mercury won't hurt you either, at least not right away. But they build up insidiously until they do reach levels in the body which are harmful, toxic. Personally, I won't use artificial sweeteners at all because I believe they are potentially quite harmful, and I don't intend to be a guinea pig for 'those guys', as the science used to sleeze them onto the market was woefully inadequate. It was mainly funded by the big companies who profit from its sale. The system is quite strongly biased towards approving whatever god-awful crap they want to foist on the public. I don't trust their questionable science.
Look, if the science were really that good, why are we having disasters like Vioxx and Rezulin and all those other deadly substances which were FDA-approved and then started hurting and killing folks? You actually trust that sort of 'science'? Really? Not me! There is a growing blizzard of injury lawsuits involving those drugs, now withdrawn from the market because they were harmful. And more pointedly, why are the big soft drink companies and so many of the food processors quietly dropping aspartame and moving to splenda? Could it be that the smell of the bad science done with aspartame is finally becoming obvious to more and more people?
Frankly, I *have not* been hearing much "garbage about a conspiracy theory by doctors", in my studies of these issues. What I *have* heard is questions raised about the overall competency of doctors *as a group*, pharmaceutical manufacturers, and govermnent regulators of that industry. In those charges, I do have some belief.
For the record, I have never (to my knowledge) been injured by the medical industry. I don't personally know anyone who has been. I have no lawsuits or that sort of crap going on. I'm very grateful modern medicine exists, though I think it is badly in need of recasting itself as health maintainer vs. disease curer. I have no investments riding on the performance or future of that or any related industry. I am not employed in those industries. I'm just one single individual who got fed up with the BS and the status quo, who took over responsibility for my own diet and health from them. And I'm better off for it. And yes, I still see doctors on occasion, when necessary. I want to live well into old age. In good health. With a minimum of medicines and surgeries (only as a last resort).
Also for the record, you have stated before that you used to work in chemical engineering. Did I remember that right? While I can't read minds, I'd assume that would tend to make you reflexively defensive of the behavior of that industry, and by extension, the pharmaceutical and medical industries as well? But that's just my guess. And if that were true, you'd tend to see anyone who is bashing the product output of those industries as ignorant, unwashed barbarians at the gate.
Sad thing is, a lot of the time, those charges eventually do prove true. There was no evil intent, mind you, but we're now moving away from dental amalgams, CFC's, PCB's, DDT (long time ago), various industrial solvents and other agents, and lately, Teflon and a host of others- because a lot of our beloved inventions ultimately proved harmful to people and the environment. We're moving away from Vioxx and Rezulin now because of all the lawsuits, but we're not ashamed to still export Vioxx to other countries. Ditto for tobacco products. It's not a pretty picture. My body is pretty much a toxic waste dump to some extent, due to all this stuff being around for near on a century now. And so is everybody elses body. I'll keep working at minimizing the damage by being most careful indeed about what chemicals I let in. But most folks are asleep at the switch. They've been deceived or at least misled, and they carry a greater body burden of toxics than I do today (hopefully). I will not drink from their vat of chemicals. Aspartame and splenda are chemicals I instinctively distrust.
[Edited by: VanKY at 5/22/2006 3:26:42 AM EST]
|
Jemac
Champion Author
Florida
Posts:23,777
Points:3,280,030
Joined:Mar 2004
|
Message Posted: May 21, 2006 6:24:02 AM
VanKY - I consider the Osteopath Mercola 60% factual, 30% a dingbat, and 10% dangerous.
When he downs most doctors, surgeons, and medicine for just homeopathic remedies, something's wrong with him, in my opinion.
He is somewhat like the new movie out...DaVinci Files. Truth, lots of garbage, and leaving you to sift through to decide what is true and what isn't true.
Nothing's wrong with little amounts of artificial sweeteners if not overdone by anyone. Other garbage.....
You hear all this garbage about a conspiracy theory by doctors, and that there is a cure for most everything out there but they are keeping it secret from us. Pure hogwash!!
Like I try telling these people, no doctor/inventor of medicines is going to let their wives, children die of cancer or any other disease, just so they can keep the medicines flowing. Pure hogwash once again.
|
philber
Rookie Author
Dallas
Posts:38
Points:11,685
Joined:Nov 2005
|
Message Posted: May 20, 2006 10:07:05 PM
Anything poisons your body if you have too much of it, even oxygen. Breathing 100% oxygen will eventually kill you.
You can drown yourself at a water fountain. People have done it.
As for animal studies, remember that animals often metabolize things differently than humans, as we are different biological systems. Some things cause cancer in animal models but not in humans, and vice versa. Also, it's important to note concentrations - how much of the substance are they ingesting per unit of weight over what period of time? Like I said above, 100% oxygen will kill you if you breathe it long enough.
Re: aspartame studies, large scale prospective trials have shown most of those prior studies to be mistaken.
Artificial sweeteners--do they bear a carcinogenic risk?
"Artificial sweeteners are added to a wide variety of food, drinks, drugs and hygiene products. Since their introduction, the mass media have reported about potential cancer risks, which has contributed to undermine the public's sense of security. It can be assumed that every citizen of Western countries uses artificial sweeteners, knowingly or not. A cancer-inducing activity of one of these substances would mean a health risk to an entire population. We performed several PubMed searches of the National Library of Medicine for articles in English about artificial sweeteners. These articles included 'first generation' sweeteners such as saccharin, cyclamate and aspartame, as well as 'new generation' sweeteners such as acesulfame-K, sucralose, alitame and neotame. Epidemiological studies in humans did not find the bladder cancer-inducing effects of saccharin and cyclamate that had been reported from animal studies in rats. Despite some rather unscientific assumptions, there is no evidence that aspartame is carcinogenic. Case-control studies showed an elevated relative risk of 1.3 for heavy artificial sweetener use (no specific substances specified) of >1.7 g/day. For new generation sweeteners, it is too early to establish any epidemiological evidence about possible carcinogenic risks. As many artificial sweeteners are combined in today's products, the carcinogenic risk of a single substance is difficult to assess. However, according to the current literature, the possible risk of artificial sweeteners to induce cancer seems to be negligible."
Dietary Amino Acids and Brain Function
"Two groups of amino acids--the aromatic and the acidic amino acids--are reputed to influence brain function when their ingestion in food changes the levels of these amino acids in the brain. The aromatic amino acids (tryptophan, tyrosine, phenylalanine) are the biosynthetic precursors for the neurotransmitters serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine. Single meals, depending on their protein content, can rapidly influence uptake of aromatic amino acid into the brain and, as a result, directly modify their conversion to neurotransmitters. Such alterations in the production of transmitters can directly modify their release from neurons and, thus, influence brain function. The acidic amino acids glutamate and aspartate are themselves brain neurotransmitters. However, they do not have ready access to the brain from the circulation or the diet. As a result, the ingestion of proteins, which are naturally rich in aspartate and glutamate, has no effect on the level of acidic amino acid in the brain (or, thus, on brain function by this mechanism). Nevertheless, the food additives monosodium glutamate and aspartame (which contains aspartate) have been reputed to raise the level of acidic amino acid in the brain (when ingested in enormous amounts), to modify brain function, and even to cause neuronal damage. Despite such claims, a substantial body of published evidence clearly indicates that the brain is not affected by ingestion of aspartame and is affected by glutamate only when the amino acid is administered alone in extremely large doses. Therefore, when consumed in the diet neither compound presents a risk to normal brain function."
As always with losing weight, the key is to burn more calories than you take in. There are also some strategies to shift where your body gets your calories (fat, muscle, sugar stores aka glycogen) if you're not eating them but if you continue to eat more calories than you burn, you will not lose weight.
[Edited by: philber at 5/21/2006 1:09:00 AM EST]
|
VanKY
Champion Author
Maryland
Posts:13,745
Points:2,768,430
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: May 16, 2006 10:26:04 AM
"Only Partial Progress on School Soda Elimination"
http://www.mercola.com/2006/may/16/only_partial_progress_on_school_soda_elimination.htm
"Artificial sweeteners are bad news all around. Despite the superficial logic that consuming fewer calories will produce weight loss, the evidence is very clear that using artificial sweeteners will cause a paradoxical effect and actually cause you to gain weight.
In fact, for many years, studies have been revealing that artificial sweeteners can:
* Stimulate your appetite
* Increase carbohydrate cravings
* Stimulate fat storage and weight gain
These chemical cocktails may be a powerful contributing factor in the obesity epidemic many industrialized nations are now experiencing. But, the damage artificially sweetened beverages and other foods can cause does not stop there.
Artificial sweeteners like aspartame (NutraSweet®) and sucralose (Splenda®) can contribute to a host of additional side effects. Animal studies have revealed that sucralose can cause:
* Shrunken thymus glands (up to 40 percent shrinkage)
* Enlarged liver and kidneys
* Atrophy of lymph follicles in the spleen and thymus
* Reduced growth rate
* Decreased red blood cell count
* Diarrhea
If these findings concern you, read on, because aspartame may be even worse.
Results of multiple studies, complaints and testimonies have revealed that aspartame can trigger or worsen diseases including:
* Brain tumors
* Multiple sclerosis
* Epilepsy
* Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease
* Birth defects
* Fibromyalgia
The bottom line is that both of these substances can poison your body. Deciding to start or continue drinking either one of them would simply be a major movement toward the development of chronic disease.
Unfortunately, the health of so many kids has been compromised by parents, who have, in turn, been deceived by all the marketing campaigns the artificial sweetener industry has thrown at them over the years..."
Dr. Mercola concludes with this observation:
"As always, the best thing for you and your kids to drink is clean, fresh water."
|
goldrose1
Champion Author
Cleveland
Posts:11,059
Points:1,947,655
Joined:Feb 2005
|
Message Posted: May 13, 2006 4:03:10 PM
Thanks all for posting good links, including for recipes for those of us who are using Splenda. Where do they come up with these names, any way.
|
Jemac
Champion Author
Florida
Posts:23,777
Points:3,280,030
Joined:Mar 2004
|
Message Posted: May 10, 2006 6:15:55 AM
Hi VanKY, I was watching the news yesterday and the "doc" on the program said that artificial sweeteners "may" be causing people to get fat too.
Something about the sweeteners may be fooling the body to think its getting the sugar when it's not........the body reacts in a way to store the fats instead of burning them. I didn't get enough of the information to make any judgment and then that's only one person saying that, too.I will search more about that on the INTERNET.
|
VanKY
Champion Author
Maryland
Posts:13,745
Points:2,768,430
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: May 9, 2006 10:54:25 PM
Hi, Jemac-
You're not going to have to win me over so far as refined sugars. A already believe they are bad news and should be avoided. Very harmful indeed. Where we differ is on the safety of artificial sweeteners. I don't trust them, even in small quantities. I especially don't trust Aspartame. The truth is starting to come out on that one. In time, we'll also have the truth on Splenda. Right now, we don't. I've said all along only that sugar is a better alternative than artificial sweeteners. It's pretty much one of those 'the devil you know vs. the devil you don't know' sort of things.
We might also debate a little on the definition of 'natural'. Cocaine isn't natural. It is highly refined. I'm sure we can agree it's harmful, just as sugar is. It is not 'natural' for a plant to grind itself up, boil itself, and separate out its fiber, leaving sugar syrup concentrate. Marijuana is natural. I don't intend to either support or condemn its use, but it definitely is natural because it is used in basically the form in which it presents in nature.
I agree with you that there is a lot of sugar in processed foods today, and that that is harmful. It should be avoided. Most folks don't know how to eat healthy. But it is a fools task to try to compensate for dietary sugar in foods by resorting to artificial sweeteners. That's plumb crazy. What you want to do is to entirely stop eating the processed foods and learn to like and subsist on natural foods. And also avoid the artificial sweeteners. Simple medicine, that, although fiendishly difficult to do in practice. But it can be done. I know because I have personally made the transition, and I'm better off for it.
BTW where can I get hold of one of those "10 food" poles? I'd love to have one. When I wasnt busy using the pole to fend off all the poisoned food offerings, I could eat the pole. Heh.
People who eat Splenda are allowing themselves to be used as guinea pigs. Same goes for Aspartame, now of lesser repute.
|
Jemac
Champion Author
Florida
Posts:23,777
Points:3,280,030
Joined:Mar 2004
|
Message Posted: May 9, 2006 8:04:37 AM
VanKY - You have to assume at the outset that the reasons people are going to the substitutes is to alleviate or slow down problems they already have which could include:
Diabetes
Cancer
High blood pressure
Heart problems
Brain problems
Tooth Decay
“How sugar upsets your whole body chemistry; how it can age your cells; the link between over consumption of sugar and a long list of degenerative diseases and how too much sugar affects behavior and mood” http://www.lauralee.com/index.cgi?page=articles/sugar.htm
“If sugar were a brand new substance today, even the FDA wouldn't approve of it -- it behaves in the body like a drug and it's addictive.”
“Americans eat 149 pounds of sugar per person per year -- we can break that down to more understandable terms -- that's over ten pounds of sugar a month, four and a half cups a week, 33 teaspoonfuls per day.”
Just to name a few reasons why people go to substitutes.
I don’t get worried about the small amounts of artificial sweeteners that are ingested daily and would worry more if it was indeed more sugar, instead of the substitutes, to compound the sugar being ingested by almost every other food that is eaten daily.
I worry about the “claims” from “professional” people claiming the sky is falling, the sky is falling by using anything other than what we knew as “natural”, without showing evidence, that all medical professionals agree on as being true.
I guess the cocaine from the plant and the marijuana is also natural. I wouldn’t touch that with a 10 food pole.
|
VanKY
Champion Author
Maryland
Posts:13,745
Points:2,768,430
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: May 8, 2006 10:13:20 PM
BTW thanks, Jemac, for a really good article url:
(http://www.buyblue.org/node/6217)! This writer sounds pretty reasonable and intelligent, and if you read carefully, notice where their gut hunches always take them in the end. Right back to mother nature. Yep, no refined sugar, little refined anything (thought still some honey, molasses, etc. that can get diabetics and others in trouble), no artificial sweeteners. Anyway, I really appreciated the link. A lot of good food for thought.
|
VanKY
Champion Author
Maryland
Posts:13,745
Points:2,768,430
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: May 8, 2006 9:53:54 PM
I still wouldn't touch Splenda with a ten mile pole. And...
I notice in your list several 'against' organizations I know little about. Yeah, those little guys tilting against windmills. I'm instinctively with them. Then you list several in the 'for' category such as the ACS, AHA, NCI, etc. All big, supposedly reputable organizations. Sorry, but to me, they increasingly seem to resemble front organizations and sellouts. They don't seem to have a clue, because they are not willing to really look at what is causing these epidemics in our society. They want 'breakthrough cures'. There is already a cure- it's called prevention, it's called health. Nobody is much interested in health. But of course they would all claim to be. Nope, look too hard at what promotes or destroys health, and you start stumbling over all these embarrassing revelations about what our pill-happy, knife-happy medical profession is doing to us as a people, and that's not good for business. No indeed. Same goes for the food processors, bless their misdirected little hearts.
Reminds me a lot of the Mother's March of Dimes. Remember them? Polio, the great scourge they agitated against, was eventually defeated due to the work of Jonas Salk and others. But did March of dimes give themselves a pat on the back for a job well done and disband, as they logically should have? Not on your life! They simply switched brands to some other dramatic cause and went on plugging away in their dedicated way. They are _professional_ fund raisers, darn it! They need to earn a living. I no longer trust such organizations. They tend to perform like magicians, using tricks of misdirection to keep us from seeing things they'd prefer we not see. We find an actual 'cure', and they're out of a job.
The FDA? Still some good people there. Very frustrated souls. The higher ups there are a bunch of hatchet men for industry, determined to cram whatever dangerous cures down our throats they can get away with. They have fled from good science. I pity them, and anyone who still trusts them. I no longer do.
Getting back to the 'big three' (four counting sugar?), I'd say sacharine is probably the artificial sweetener with the least baggage. But I still much prefer natural fruit sugars derived directly from fresh fruit, with refined sugar being dead last in the 'naturals' category. (It's not that 'natural', anyway). Refined carbos are bad news. Those wanting dietary sweetness would best get it from real food, not concentrates of anything.
[Edited by: VanKY at 5/9/2006 12:55:54 AM EST]
|
Jemac
Champion Author
Florida
Posts:23,777
Points:3,280,030
Joined:Mar 2004
|
Message Posted: May 7, 2006 6:39:28 AM
I realize the topic is Splenda not Aspartame but a tidbit as long as Vanky is on the subject.
"Once I got into reading up on the subject online, I realized that the artificial sweetener debate is murky, confusing, and unresolvable under our current cronyist system. What do I mean? Join me on the flip..."
-----------------
The Major Players
As is the case all too often, the first important task is to follow the money. The major players in the artificial sweetener debate are Saccharin, Aspartame, and Splenda. Each artificial sweetener is a competitor with sugar (which we already know throws its weight around in our government).
There have been hundreds of studies about the safety of aspartame. Just so you know where everyone stands:
UK Campaign for Truth in Medicine - against
The American Cancer Society - for
The Feingold Association - against
The American Heart Association - for
Association for Consumers Action on Safety and Health - against
National Cancer Institute - for
National Health Federation - against
FDA - for
Marc Maron Show - against
http://www.buyblue.org/node/6217
|
VanKY
Champion Author
Maryland
Posts:13,745
Points:2,768,430
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: May 6, 2006 10:55:14 PM
Italian scientist Morando Soffritti (see 2nd url below):
Q: What are the results of your investigations conducted between 1997 and 2005 about the effect of aspartame?
A: The results indicate that aspartame is a multi-potential carcinogen, even consumed daily at 20 milligrams per kilogram of body weight. That is a lower quantity than the maximum recommended by the FDA (50 mg/kg of body weight) and the European Union (40 mg/kg).
Q: Can it be assumed that what happened in the rats could also happen in human beings?
A: According to an investigation of cancer by the World Heath Organisation, the experimental study of carcinogenic agents in rats is very important for humans. One-third of the cancer-causing agents in man have been discovered with experiments conducted on animals.
Q: Are people who consume aspartame condemned to developing cancer?
A: Cancer is related to many factors and to genetics. We can't say that a consumer of aspartame will develop cancer. There are people who smoke cigarettes their entire lives and never develop lung cancer.
(Read the entire short article for the full flavor of it)
|
Jemac
Champion Author
Florida
Posts:23,777
Points:3,280,030
Joined:Mar 2004
|
Message Posted: May 6, 2006 1:54:56 PM
VanKY - Just remember they said that about saccharin for 50 years and they now say there hasn't been one death associated with saccharin.
The water you're drinking has carcinogens in it too, just as most everything you eat or drink.
“Arsenic occurs in food in organic and inorganic forms. Most foods contain trace levels of arsenic. Fish and seafoods can accumulate considerable amounts of organic arsenic from their environment (WHO, 1981). The arsenic content of plants is usually determined by the arsenic content of the soil, water, air, fertilisers and other chemicals. “
“Various types of carcinogens in foods are known. There are naturally occurring carcinogens found in edible plants or spices, such as pyrrolidine alkaloids, flavonoids, and anthraquinones. Nitrosamines and nitrosamides are produced from food components and nitrite y nitrosation reaction either during cooking and food processing or in the stomach. Mycotoxins such as Aphlatoxins are produced by fungi contaminating in foods (peanuts). Heterocyclic amines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) are produced by the pyrolysis (breakdown by heat) of amino acids, proteins, and other food components. Food additives and contaminants could be carcinogenic.”
http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_201_250/carcinogens_in_foods.htmhttp://www.nzfsa.govt.nz/consumers/food-safety-topics/chemicals-in-food/arsenic/index.htmSo far, reasonable people have said that Splenda and Aspartame are considered safe and Splenda is supposed to be from strictly natural sugar.
I take Mercola as 75% reasonable/25% unreasonable, just like most of the others.
Just my humble opinion and only time will tell.
|
VanKY
Champion Author
Maryland
Posts:13,745
Points:2,768,430
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: May 6, 2006 10:39:37 AM
HEALTH: "Yes, Aspartame Is a Carcinogen" Francesca Colombo*
http://www.mercola.com/2006/may/4/famed_scientist_discusses_aspartame_toxicity.htm
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=32904
Yeah. They said Aspartame was safe. Sure. The truth will come out eventually about Splenda. And the truth likely is that it (1.) doesn't help a bit in losing weight, and (2.) is dangerous, possibly deadly. But you folks go on being lab rats for some giant, soulless corporations. They pay for the 'studies' supposedly proving these substances safe. What do you think the research guys are going to say? They are falling all over themselves trying to satisfy their clients. It was very bad science that let Aspartame on the market in the first place. Flawed science. I wouldn't touch Splenda with a ten mile pole! You want sweetness in your coffee? Go with sugar. It's bad for you, but probably won't give you cancer or neurological damage.
|
Jemac
Champion Author
Florida
Posts:23,777
Points:3,280,030
Joined:Mar 2004
|
Message Posted: May 2, 2006 8:47:03 AM
1yankeefan - Splenda is good as it both cuts down your intake of sugar and if you are a diabetic it works wonders for you too in that respect.
It also keeps your insulin levels down which saves your pancreas for overworking, etc.
As long as there aren't negative effects from Splenda which I haven't seen anything reputable against it yet.
|
rhv877
Sophomore Author
Grand Rapids
Posts:229
Points:176,535
Joined:Mar 2006
|
Message Posted: May 2, 2006 5:54:29 AM
The best diets colas I've ever had are made with Splenda.
|
Sandytoes
Rookie Author
Virginia
Posts:35
Points:7,035
Joined:Apr 2006
|
Message Posted: Apr 25, 2006 7:49:00 AM
I like it as a person who cant have any sugar. It is the best option because you can bake with it using equal amounts like sugar. The concern would be -what the heck are the health implications down the road since it is something so new
|
1yankeefan
Champion Author
Rhode Island
Posts:1,227
Points:123,440
Joined:Apr 2006
|
Message Posted: Apr 24, 2006 11:19:56 AM
I bought splenda trying to save a few calories,first of all its very expensive,although target is selling it cheeper than the super market.the problem is that I dont use much sugar in my coffee to begin with,and Iam wondering if its even worth spending the extra money to save 60 calories
|
buckeye269
Champion Author
Ohio
Posts:13,471
Points:2,454,480
Joined:Mar 2006
|
Message Posted: Apr 10, 2006 4:50:52 PM
Make great cookies from splenda
|
MITYMO
Champion Author
Las Vegas
Posts:13,180
Points:1,590,850
Joined:Jan 2004
|
Message Posted: Apr 8, 2006 8:28:01 AM
splenda is alright. For tea, I always use honey as a sweetener. They just seem to go together. Has anyone ever put honey in their coffee?
|
VanKY
Champion Author
Maryland
Posts:13,745
Points:2,768,430
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: Apr 7, 2006 11:40:28 PM
"Blue Agave"? That's a trade name. What is the actual substance? Go ahead, you can mention the manufacturer's name.
|
LVirchow
Champion Author
Philadelphia
Posts:4,922
Points:842,580
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: Apr 7, 2006 6:24:40 PM
i like splenda i just wish it wasnt so expensive!
|
XangoTraveler
Veteran Author
Los Angeles
Posts:275
Points:32,165
Joined:Apr 2005
|
Message Posted: Apr 5, 2006 11:44:19 PM
From what I've heard - artificial sweeteners are like poison for the body. So I prefer to use Blue Agave. It's a low glycemic 'nectar' from a particular company. Can I mention the company? I share info about it, if asked. (What do the rules say about sharing in that manner?)
|
ZeeGirl
All-Star Author
Houston
Posts:545
Points:244,375
Joined:Jul 2005
|
Message Posted: Mar 13, 2006 8:27:29 PM
I stopped using regular sugar years ago. It would just settle at the bottom of the glass. I switched to Sweet-n-low, and then Equal came about, now I just use Splenda.
|
JeannieGirl
Champion Author
Winston-Salem
Posts:15,518
Points:2,531,835
Joined:Sep 2005
|
Message Posted: Mar 7, 2006 1:59:21 AM
i like the splenda but sometimes i mix with sugar in baking
|
MageIronWolf
Sophomore Author
Twin Cities
Posts:157
Points:322,870
Joined:Apr 2005
|
Message Posted: Mar 6, 2006 3:25:54 PM
Splenda Recipes
Have been looking thru these for ideas.
|
OrlandoCruisin
Champion Author
Orlando
Posts:1,185
Points:252,645
Joined:May 2005
|
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2006 5:55:06 PM
Splenda is awesome
|
GRJ
Champion Author
Memphis
Posts:11,852
Points:2,397,810
Joined:Dec 2005
|
Message Posted: Feb 17, 2006 11:56:56 AM
I stop using sugar about 3 years ago...Splenda is the bes
|
tomandlizzy
Rookie Author
St. Louis
Posts:1
Points:1,685
Joined:Feb 2006
|
Message Posted: Feb 3, 2006 7:53:51 PM
splenda is the best i dont know what i would do with out it however i dont work very well in coffee
|
FlyGirlKR
Rookie Author
Mobile
Posts:16
Points:11,820
Joined:Jan 2006
|
Message Posted: Feb 3, 2006 6:23:47 PM
Splenda is my choice of sugar subsitutes. I never liked the pink stuff. The blue stuff is ok. I guess eventually they will tell us that the yellow stuff causes something too.
|