Guest guest Posted November 16, 2004 Report Share Posted November 16, 2004 It's not that it hurts our bodies in small amounts, it's a carrier for taste. Imagine a little buggy with a big ball of sweetness on it. After the sweetness is used up the buggy still has to go somewhere because we can't digest a buggy! Could be wrong. Pyle Louisville,KY USA U of L Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2004 Report Share Posted November 29, 2004 You are missing the point. There are many things out there that our body's cannot absorb or " break down " as you stated... FIBER is one of them. That's right... fiber is not readily absorbed through the small intestine into the bloodstream... will fiber hurt you? Certainly not (as long as you are not too low... or ridiculously high) The whole point of splenda is 1) it tastes sweet 2) it does not enter circulation and cannot be oxidized for energy. these points do NOT make it unsafe whatsoever. -Layne Norton Champaign, IL University of IL Division of Nutritional Sciences --- fitnessnut40 wrote: > > > Why would such a product be approved if our bodies > can't break it > down. Does this make any sense to anyone else??? > > > Shrewsbury, PA USA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2004 Report Share Posted December 7, 2004 I have found that one area my fellow Americans love to live in denial about is the potential toxicity of artificial sweeteners. These chemicals enjoy a ubiquitous presence in foods (especially now, with the low-carb craze), the astounding majority of which, by any standard, are " junk foods " --ie. highly processed and devoid of significant nutritional contributions. I pulled some blurbs off of the web to illustrate my point and included the pertinent references in brackets. Layne Norton wrote: > You are missing the point. There are many things out > there that our body's cannot absorb or " break down " as > you stated... FIBER is one of them. That's right... > fiber is not readily absorbed through the small > intestine into the bloodstream... will fiber hurt you? **Fiber is a natural component of REAL foods. There is a PURPOSE to fiber in food. Sucralose is a man-made chemical that serves no purpose other than satiating our artificially ramped-up sweet tooth cravings. The general public has been led to believe, through false advertising (see below), that none of it is absorbed. I judge that as someone who studies nutritional science, it is you who is missing the point of the difference between REAL FOOD and MAN-MADE CHEMICALS. From http://www.mercola.com/2000/dec/3/sucralose_dangers.htm# : Despite the manufacturer's claims to the contrary , sucralose is significantly absorbed and metabolized by the body. According to the FDA's " Final Rule " report [Food and Drug Administration " Final Rule " for Sucralose, 21 CFR Part 172, Docket No. 87F-0086], 11% to 27% of sucralose is absorbed in humans, and the rest is excreted unchanged in feces. According to the Japanese Food Sanitation Council, as much as 40% of ingested sucralose is absorbed. Plasma sucralose has been reported to have a half-life of anywhere from 2 to 5 hours in most studies, although the half-life in rabbits was found to be much longer at about 36 hours. About 20% to 30% of absorbed sucralose is metabolized. Both the metabolites and unchanged absorbed sucralose are excreted in urine. The absorbed sucralose has been found to concentrate in the liver, kidney, and gastrointestinal tract. According to The Sucralose Toxicity Information Center, sucralose is broken down " into small amounts of 1,6-dichlorofructose, a chemical which has not been adequtely tested in humans. " The " we don't absorb it " argument becomes null and void IF you believe the FDA. They're the ones who approved it, right? Can anyone say 'Vioxx'?!? Layne Norton wrote: > Certainly not (as long as you are not too low... or > ridiculously high) The whole point of splenda is > 1) it tastes sweet > 2) it does not enter circulation and cannot be > oxidized for energy. **I don't think I need to address #2 here anymore. If the 11-27%+ of absorbed sucralose (according to the FDA, those beacons of public safety) is broken down, now we have sugar and 3 chlorine molecules. This is what sucralose was entirely created to avoid, correct? If the molecule stays whole and unchanged during its 11-27%+ absorption, we have then added to our " body burden " of toxic chemicals. From http://www.mercola.com/2000/dec/3/sucralose_dangers.htm# : According to Consumers Research Magazine " Some concern was raised about sucralose being a chlorinated molecule. Some chlorinated molecules serve as the basis for pesticides such as D.D.T., and accumulate in body fat. However, & emphasized that sucralose passes through the body unabsorbed. " Of course, this assertion about not being absorbed is complete nonsense. As shown above, a substantial amount of sucralose is absorbed, so the argument is not valid. According to the HAD, " The manufacturer claims that the chlorine added to sucralose is similar to the chlorine atom in the salt (NaCl) molecule. That is not the case. Sucralose may be more like ingesting tiny amounts of chlorinated pesticides, but we will never know without long-term, independent human research. Those on this list are typically of the scientific mindset. Why are we not demanding independent research? Referring to the same source as I have been previously, does anyone have references as to whether or not the following questions have been answered?: *Does it remain stabile or react with other substances to form new compounds? *Is the sucralose or any resulting chemicals safe for the environment? *How will this chemical affect aquatic life such as fish, as well as other animals? *Will sucralose begin to appear in our water supplies, just as some drugs are beginning to be found? *Pre-approval tests indicated potential toxicity of sucralose, has there been any follow-up? *Have *independent* controlled long-term (12-24 month) human studies been performed on sucralose? *Why is there no government monitoring or epidemiological studies of the health effects of sucralose?. I highly suggest that those interested go read the entire webpage that I referenced for this email. There are references for those who need them at the very bottom. It is my judgement that the slippery slope of the world's nutritional demise truly began with white flour/sugar and is being expanded and furthered by people trying to create and promote substitutes for those original poisons that most of the world is now addicted to. It is truly a sad day when people in the nutrition and exercise fields are so quick and eager to jump on the bandwagon of and defend an understudied, potentially harmful, and likely ineffective artificial food additive. Nutrition is about real food and feeding the body. As a personal trainer, I'm yet to see anyone lose significant amounts of weight using artificial sweeteners. I see tons of overweight adn obese people shoveling it down though. -- --- Garrett RKC NM-S CSCS BS Tempe, AZ, USA www.ActivePotential.com Certified kettlebell instruction, discounted kettlebells, and more... Email to: cscsatc@... Join the AZ Kettlebell Club! Send email to AZKBC-subscribe " The greatest quest in life is to reach one's potential. " --Mychal Wynn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2004 Report Share Posted December 13, 2004 --- Garrett wrote: > > > I have found that one area my fellow Americans love > to live in denial about > is the potential toxicity of artificial sweeteners. I don't disagree with you for the most part. I think we should all attempt to consume food that is as close as possible to the ground from whence it came. I also believe that this way of eating helps to tame a sweet tooth by training oneself out of the desire for the sickly-sweet taste that characterizes many processed foods. In other words, keeping food sweet by any means can be problematic in that the consumer remains accustomed to the unnaturally sweet taste. I consider the trend of substitute foods (i.e. low fat this, low carb that) rather disgusting - for heaven's sake, just eat a tasty, moderately-sized whole grain bread product from a local bakery, rather than consuming a chemical-laden simulacrum! I know of intolerances to aspartame (a friend of mine breaks out into hives from it; another one gets headaches), and I know that 60 years ago we all thought DDT and various solvents were as healthy as eating apples. That all being said, the current literature remains equivocal about the issue of artificial sweeteners. Ann Oncol. 2004 Oct;15(10):1460-5. Artificial sweeteners--do they bear a carcinogenic risk? Weihrauch MR, Diehl V. Department of Internal Medicine I of the University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany. martin.weihrauch@... 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. ****** I share your caution. Yet in practical terms, if sweeteners can provide a step along the road to a training client weaning themselves away from cruddy food, then they might be an appropriate strategy in the short term. Krista -Dixon Toronto, ON www.stumptuous.com/weights.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.