sucralose

[Guest guest]

Hi--I use sweetener pretty much only in my morning coffee and quart of tea

(one black and one green teabag), the latter being sipped throughout the

day. I used to use a 1gm Stevia packet in each. When the sucralose

arrived, I took an old vitamin bottle (large enough to hold the sea monkey

measurer) and opened 20 packets of Stevia into it along with 1/2 teaspoon

of sucralose. Shake vigorously (I was worried about separation, with the

smaller sucralose particles sinking to the bottom--doesn't seem to be a

difficulty). One " big end " measure of the sea monkey seems to work fine

for both the coffee and the tea. Use more or less Stevia to taste (though

I experimented some)...I have a feeling that my 20 packets of Stevia that

used to last 10 days (and had way to much maltodextrose) will be

" stretched " well into next year!

Best, Phil

[Guest guest]

Contact Warren for a large supply at cheap prices. Otherwise, you can buy

Splenda, which is mostly sucralose, in supermarkets these days.

on 12/22/2003 9:09 PM, Rodney at perspect1111@... wrote:

> Hi folks:

>

> Wanting to find out more about sucralose I did a search and came up

> with this. It is five years old but answered all the questions I had

> about it:

>

> http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9804/01/sweetener/index.html

>

> Season's greetings to everyone!

>

> Rodney.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

--- In , " jwwright " <jwwright@e...>

wrote:

> Hi Andy,

> I guess I got to be a " Food Nazi " after years of eating stuff that

> made me sick. Then I begin to ask logical questions why do I eat

> these things? Why did we have to lose weight, eg? Why not stay the

> same weight you achieved eating the " good " stuff, living the " good "

> life? I don't find sweeteners healthy or unhealthy, just

> unnecessary. But, If I want a sweetener (to avoid deprivation),

> I'll use sugar.

*****Just to clarify....I employ the term " Food Nazi " for those who

would *impose* on others (dogmatically) a system of eating and a

perspective on health, who demand that others accept how " their "

system is THE right and THE correct one, who do not see the vast and

miraculous variety in all of life's expressions. This type

of 'fundamentalism' begats a particularly insidious form of

intolerance and is found in many walks of life (religion, education,

politics). So, if you feel strongly that YOU must eschew particular

sweeteners, or all sweeteners, artificial or natural, then, by all

means, go for it! It is your life, welcome to it. :-))) And

recognize that the choices made may not be applicable to others.

It's a much less stressful way to live. Peace.

[Guest guest]

All I said was I don't understand why it's used. I just don't understand using a non-nutritive sweetener. There are no nutrition benefits, right? Just people addicted to a sweetener as you and I are not. It's a habit just like nicotine or alcohol. I don't try ot impose anything, I just try to understand why, especially in a NUTRITION group why we have so many people espousing so many positives for a non-nutrition product. It's a weight reducing aid MAYBE, right? Please tell if any artificial sweetener has any lifespan increasing qualities.

CR if anything, is about CONTROLLING our intake, and not letting it control us. If we have hunger or a craving for something, I think we have a shortage of some nutrient.

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: Andy

Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 4:44 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: Sucralose

*****Just to clarify....I employ the term "Food Nazi" for those who would *impose* on others (dogmatically) a system of eating and a perspective on health, who demand that others accept how "their" system is THE right and THE correct one, who do not see the vast and miraculous variety in all of life's expressions. This type of 'fundamentalism' begats a particularly insidious form of intolerance and is found in many walks of life (religion, education, politics). So, if you feel strongly that YOU must eschew particular sweeteners, or all sweeteners, artificial or natural, then, by all means, go for it! It is your life, welcome to it. :-))) And recognize that the choices made may not be applicable to others. It's a much less stressful way to live. Peace.

[Guest guest]

J.W: Of course there are no nutrition benefits, but it allows us to enjoy

our diets. Some of us just don't have the willpower to eschew sweetners

altogether, so we use the ones that don't add calories/other problems. It's

a habit yes, but allows us to enjoy some desserts (see the dessert file for

example), to make our guar puddings, to enjoy our coffee/green tea etc.

on 12/30/2003 6:34 PM, jwwright at jwwright@... wrote:

> All I said was I don't understand why it's used. I just don't understand using

> a non-nutritive sweetener. There are no nutrition benefits, right? Just people

> addicted to a sweetener as you and I are not. It's a habit just like nicotine

> or alcohol. I don't try ot impose anything, I just try to understand why,

> especially in a NUTRITION group why we have so many people espousing so many

> positives for a non-nutrition product. It's a weight reducing aid MAYBE,

> right? Please tell if any artificial sweetener has any lifespan increasing

> qualities.

> CR if anything, is about CONTROLLING our intake, and not letting it control

> us. If we have hunger or a craving for something, I think we have a shortage

> of some nutrient.

>

> Regards.

[Guest guest]

--- In , " jwwright " <jwwright@e...>

wrote:

All I said was I don't understand why it's used. I just don't

understand using a non-nutritive sweetener. There are no nutrition

benefits, right?

*****It is used because it makes food taste " better " as defined by

our conditioned tastebuds. Surely not 'better' to everyone, but

clearly to a significant portion of the Western-world's population.

Just people addicted to a sweetener as you and I are not. It's a

habit just like nicotine or alcohol. I don't try ot impose anything,

I just try to understand why, especially in a NUTRITION group why we

have so many people espousing so many positives for a non-nutrition

product. It's a weight reducing aid MAYBE, right? Please tell if any

artificial sweetener has any lifespan increasing qualities. CR if

anything, is about CONTROLLING our intake, and not letting it control

us. If we have hunger or a craving for something, I think we have a

shortage of some nutrient.

*****Sure. I see what you're saying. But there may be some

biological, species-oriented drives that are in conflict with

longevity. As Walford explains it, some cravings are built into the

human organism so that it will eat enough to insure a healthy,

vibrant set of procreative years. The goal (of Nature) is to attain

that state as quickly as possible (and thus better guarantee that the

species continues via procreation). It may be that some of our food

cravings (sweets/fats), which work against a long and healthy life,

are exactly the same drives that insure the highest probability of

the species continuance. Walford couches this in a " parable " (p. 69

BT120YD):

" Given free choice, an animal will instinctively choose a diet that

leads to quick growth and development and to reach sexual maturity as

soon as possible. This tendency promotes survival of the species in

the wild, but is at the same time highly counter-productive for

individual long life...Animals are instinctively programmed to choose

what will make them grow fast and have lots of offspring, even if

that choice brings them frequent disease later on. This direct

conflict between species and individual surivial may be unprecedented

in biology.

[This] suggests that some of the crazy and self-destructive things

that we do are the result of species-survival instincts acting

through us without our knowing what is really going on. These

instincts were of course formed in prehistoric times, during the

process of evolution, and they may not be appropriate at all in

today's world, even for the species survival itself, much less our

long-term personal survival. Whatever the value of these

speculations, it seems most unlikely that we can trust our instincts

to select what is good for us as individuals. "

[Guest guest]

Sucralose makes a good substitute for sugar... I routinely use it in lemonade, baking, etc... I am not addicted to sweets (drink my coffee black thank you), but there is a place for it in many recipes.

JR

-----Original Message-----From: jwwright [mailto:jwwright@...]Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 5:35 PM Subject: Re: [ ] Re: Sucralose

All I said was I don't understand why it's used. I just don't understand using a non-nutritive sweetener. There are no nutrition benefits, right? Just people addicted to a sweetener as you and I are not. It's a habit just like nicotine or alcohol. I don't try ot impose anything, I just try to understand why, especially in a NUTRITION group why we have so many people espousing so many positives for a non-nutrition product. It's a weight reducing aid MAYBE, right? Please tell if any artificial sweetener has any lifespan increasing qualities.

CR if anything, is about CONTROLLING our intake, and not letting it control us. If we have hunger or a craving for something, I think we have a shortage of some nutrient.

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: Andy

Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 4:44 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: Sucralose

*****Just to clarify....I employ the term "Food Nazi" for those who would *impose* on others (dogmatically) a system of eating and a perspective on health, who demand that others accept how "their" system is THE right and THE correct one, who do not see the vast and miraculous variety in all of life's expressions. This type of 'fundamentalism' begats a particularly insidious form of intolerance and is found in many walks of life (religion, education, politics). So, if you feel strongly that YOU must eschew particular sweeteners, or all sweeteners, artificial or natural, then, by all means, go for it! It is your life, welcome to it. :-))) And recognize that the choices made may not be applicable to others. It's a much less stressful way to live. Peace.

[Guest guest]

I use sucralose when I want the flavor. I don't always want sweet drinks

or food, but I love the option.

I react negatively to processed sugar, and I believe it is a poison for my

body. I can't ignore the health benefit of choosing sucralose over sugar.

In my view, processed sugar is not only non-nutritive, it is worse because

of the damage it can cause. Expressed as a ratio, the nutritive value/calories

for sucralose is far superior to the same calculation for processed sugar.

Even though I feel strongly about this for me, I don't harbor any negative

thoughts about those who find sugar to be acceptable for them.

jwright wrote:

All I said was I don't understand

why it's used. I just don't understand using a non-nutritive sweetener.

There are no nutrition benefits, right? Just people addicted to a sweetener

as you and I are not. It's a habit just like nicotine or alcohol. I don't

try ot impose anything, I just try to understand why, especially in a NUTRITION group

why we have so many people espousing so many positives for a non-nutrition

product. It's a weight reducing aid MAYBE, right? Please tell if any artificial

sweetener has any lifespan increasing qualities.

CR if anything, is about CONTROLLING

our intake, and not letting it control us. If we have hunger or a craving

for something, I think we have a shortage of some nutrient.

Regards.

-----

Original Message -----

From:

Andy

To:

Sent:

Tuesday, December 30, 2003 4:44 PM

Subject:

[ ] Re: Sucralose

*****Just to clarify....I employ the term "Food Nazi" for those who

would *impose* on others (dogmatically) a system of eating and a

perspective on health, who demand that others accept how "their"

system is THE right and THE correct one, who do not see the vast and

miraculous variety in all of life's expressions. This type

of 'fundamentalism' begats a particularly insidious form of

intolerance and is found in many walks of life (religion, education,

politics). So, if you feel strongly that YOU must eschew particular

sweeteners, or all sweeteners, artificial or natural, then, by all

means, go for it! It is your life, welcome to it. :-))) And

recognize that the choices made may not be applicable to others.

It's a much less stressful way to live. Peace.

[Guest guest]

Yea Warren! You are so able to state facts succinctly, and you even know that the singular of "criteria" is "criterion" , very rare here in Florida where "I seen" is acceped everywhere.. Happy, healthy New Year! Peg

[Guest guest]

Excess calories are toxic and decrease lifespan.

That is the entire message of CR in one sentence.

Sucralose is made from sugar, is sweeter than sugar,

carries no penalty of caloric toxicity, and is

healthier than eating empty calories (of sugar).

Thus Sucralose meets the criterion of being an

excellent addition to a CR diet.

-- Warren

Live long, live healthy, live lean, live happy.

Happy New Year!

On 29 Dec 2003, JW wrote:

>

> All I said was I don't understand why it's (Sucralose) used.

> I just don't understand using a non-nutritive sweetener.

> There are no nutrition benefits, right?

[Guest guest]

Years ago, parents used to teach that sugar was poison for the body.

This was figurative, since nobody believed sugar was really poison.

However, laboratory research now teaches us that sugar is a poison,

due to its caloric toxicity: Sugar hurts us. Every excess calorie

decreases our expected lifespan.

Excess calories are toxic and decrease lifespan.

That is the entire message of CR in one sentence.

-- Warren

Apricot85 -- May I cross-post your message here to another list?

Francesca -- May I cross-post this message here to another list, if I get

Apricot's permission, and you concur?

If you say " NO " , that is OK with me. I can also give credit to the origin

of this inspiration as the CR Support List. Tell me what is allowed.

Thanks.

=================

On 30 Dec 2003, Apricot85 wrote:

I use Sucralose when I want the flavor.

I don't always want sweet drinks or food,

but I love the option.

I react negatively to processed sugar,

and I believe it is a poison for my body...

[Guest guest]

You and Warren have made me think more about this artificial sweetener thing. First, I don't think anyone at the FDA is worried about being sued by an anorexic's family. Not true for individuals. Secondly, we have at least one confirmed anorexic in our CR groups of maybe 2000 people. And I think there may be 2 or 3 others near it.

I don't know what the artificial stuff contributes to my body's "perception" of what it's getting for food, but I think if I fake it out with anything, there may be a consequence.

I think animals do choose their food, I recall studies of cattle and I've seen cattle break/jump fences to get the green stuff they sense. I think few mothers force feed their babies who choose to eat or not eat certain foods.

But the foods we get in stores are prepared to increase product sales. They make me hungry when in fact I've eaten enough. Now if sucralose or any other chemical makes it taste "good", that's not a criteria to judge whether we should eat it. In fact, one noted guy says: "don't eat anything that tastes good". (Jack LaLanne). Not that he's an expert on nutrition, but I think his point is the food is designed to sell more product. I don't think I can trust my "instincts" when they are being manipulated.

Take for example, "low sodium" V-8. It's delicious. My wife made a very tasty stew with it. You can't stop eating it. It's very powerful and only after you measure the blood pressure rise will you realize they've added something. It's an alternative to MSG and they didn't put it in there for health reasons.

Yes, Walford's statement is correct "given free choice...". The choice isn't free any more.

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: Andy

Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 6:37 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: Sucralose

Just people addicted to a sweetener as you and I are not. It's a habit just like nicotine or alcohol. I don't try ot impose anything, I just try to understand why, especially in a NUTRITION group why we have so many people espousing so many positives for a non-nutrition product. It's a weight reducing aid MAYBE, right? Please tell if any artificial sweetener has any lifespan increasing qualities. CR if anything, is about CONTROLLING our intake, and not letting it control us. If we have hunger or a craving for something, I think we have a shortage of some nutrient. *****Sure. I see what you're saying. But there may be some biological, species-oriented drives that are in conflict with longevity. As Walford explains it, some cravings are built into the human organism so that it will eat enough to insure a healthy, vibrant set of procreative years. The goal (of Nature) is to attain that state as quickly as possible (and thus better guarantee that the species continues via procreation). It may be that some of our food cravings (sweets/fats), which work against a long and healthy life, are exactly the same drives that insure the highest probability of the species continuance. Walford couches this in a "parable" (p. 69 BT120YD):"Given free choice, an animal will instinctively choose a diet that leads to quick growth and development and to reach sexual maturity as soon as possible. This tendency promotes survival of the species in the wild, but is at the same time highly counter-productive for individual long life...Animals are instinctively programmed to choose what will make them grow fast and have lots of offspring, even if that choice brings them frequent disease later on. This direct conflict between species and individual surivial may be unprecedented in biology.[This] suggests that some of the crazy and self-destructive things that we do are the result of species-survival instincts acting through us without our knowing what is really going on. These instincts were of course formed in prehistoric times, during the process of evolution, and they may not be appropriate at all in today's world, even for the species survival itself, much less our long-term personal survival. Whatever the value of these speculations, it seems most unlikely that we can trust our instincts to select what is good for us as individuals."

[Guest guest]

Thanks Peg! You have a gift for radiating

kind feelings, and a gift for words -- Warren

======================

-----Original Message-----

From: hsanborn2@... [mailto:hsanborn2@...]

Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2003 8:43 AM

Subject: Re: [ ] Re: Sucralose

Yea Warren! You are so able to state facts succinctly,

and you even know that the singular of " criteria " is " criterion " ,

very rare here in Florida where " I seen " is accepted everywhere..

Happy, healthy New Year! Peg

[Guest guest]

All excess calories decrease lifespan and that does not justify using artificial sweeteners.

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: Warren

Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2003 10:01 AM

Subject: RE: [ ] Re: Sucralose

Years ago, parents used to teach that sugar was poison for the body.This was figurative, since nobody believed sugar was really poison.However, laboratory research now teaches us that sugar is a poison,due to its caloric toxicity: Sugar hurts us. Every excess caloriedecreases our expected lifespan.Excess calories are toxic and decrease lifespan.That is the entire message of CR in one sentence.-- Warren

[Guest guest]

This Atkinish nutritionalist does use sucralose!

[Guest guest]

Touche on the value of splenda being the additional taste factor in food. I love sweetened salad dressings...ie poppy seed etc. But I won't eat sugar. So I eat more salads eating my sucralose sweetened salad dressings. I am more prone to this in the winter when my carb cravings are at their worst. I use less in the summer...going to saltier, tangier types of foods.

[Guest guest]

Hi

I'm just searching out the facts. I don't care what you eat.

Is there another justification other than taste? So far that's the only "technical" thing that's been offered.

We have a need for a large amount of energy, arguably the largest nutritional factor. At least 1000 of my 1800 kcals comes from energy. A lot of that is carbos converted to glucose, even for diabetics. Is that not a universal truth? Do atkin's dieters use sucralose?

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: Dowling

Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2003 1:03 PM

Subject: Re: [ ] Re: Sucralose

Your statements are sounding a bit "Food Nazi"-ish....There may be no justification for artificial sweeteners for you, but that doesn't make it a universal truth.

[Guest guest]

It doesn't. Neither does using sugar. That was an answer to Warren's CR claim. Sucralose does not extend life.

Just because a person uses sugar does not it not CR.

----- Original Message -----

From: Andy

Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2003 2:27 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: Sucralose

All excess calories decrease lifespan and that does not justify using artificial sweeteners.*****Why does the use of artificial sweeteners require justification? Why is it an issue for anyone other than one's self (and perhaps for children under one's care)?

[Guest guest]

No there is no other justification. But it makes being a CRONIE easier

because the only good thing about sugar is the taste, so eating a no

calorie, harmless sweetner instead of sugar means less sacrifice.

on 12/31/2003 4:14 PM, jwwright at jwwright@... wrote:

> Is there another justification other than taste?

[Guest guest]

Sucralose is a "quality of life" issue pure and simple. The use of "sweetness" (however generated) is useful in food preparation to offset bitter flavors common to sundry nutritious ingredients.

If you are comfortable with zero sweeteners, more power to you. Just because I don't chooses to doesn't make you wrong or me right... perhaps we can both be right.

JR

PS: FWIW, Perhaps we should describe those intolerant of other's food preferences as "food Baathists" :-) , just to be more current.

PPS: I'm just trying to make a current events joke and not take this discussion ad hominum... Peace and Happy New Year to all.

-----Original Message-----From: jwwright [mailto:jwwright@...]Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2003 3:15 PM Subject: Re: [ ] Re: Sucralose

Hi

I'm just searching out the facts. I don't care what you eat.

Is there another justification other than taste? So far that's the only "technical" thing that's been offered.

We have a need for a large amount of energy, arguably the largest nutritional factor. At least 1000 of my 1800 kcals comes from energy. A lot of that is carbos converted to glucose, even for diabetics. Is that not a universal truth? Do atkin's dieters use sucralose?

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: Dowling

Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2003 1:03 PM

Subject: Re: [ ] Re: Sucralose

Your statements are sounding a bit "Food Nazi"-ish....There may be no justification for artificial sweeteners for you, but that doesn't make it a universal truth.

[Guest guest]

I quite agree with you: there is no nutritional justification for artificial

sweeteners.

If they can; however, bring one pleasure without adding health risks or

calories, then I have no objection to them, personally, or generally.

I think that many CR practitioners find sweet taste pleasurable, and that

sucralose can provide pleasure without incuring the ingestion of excess

calories.

>From: " jwwright " <jwwright@...>

>Reply-

>< >

>Subject: Re: [ ] Re: Sucralose

>Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:14:40 -0600

>

>Hi

>I'm just searching out the facts. I don't care what you eat.

>Is there another justification other than taste? So far that's the only

> " technical " thing that's been offered.

>We have a need for a large amount of energy, arguably the largest

>nutritional factor. At least 1000 of my 1800 kcals comes from energy. A

>lot of that is carbos converted to glucose, even for diabetics. Is that not

>a universal truth? Do atkin's dieters use sucralose?

>

>Regards.

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: Dowling

>

> Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2003 1:03 PM

> Subject: Re: [ ] Re: Sucralose

>

>

> Your statements are sounding a bit " Food Nazi " -ish....

>

> There may be no justification for artificial sweeteners for you, but

>that

> doesn't make it a universal truth.

>

[Guest guest]

Thanks for that data, Kim.

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: kimlynette@...

Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2003 5:06 PM

Subject: Re: [ ] Re: Sucralose

This Atkinish nutritionalist does use sucralose!