slenda

[briansauras]

any here use splenda in coffee or with any other foods?

[DNoMac]

Yup, with my oats sometimes as well. Optimum Nutrition also uses splenda in there 100% whey protein (which is what I use).

[briansauras]

Yup, with my oats sometimes as well. Optimum Nutrition also uses splenda in there 100% whey protein (which is what I use).

I was just browsing the net and saw some shit about how splenda can be bad for u and I was like fuuuck, i put that in my PWO shakes and my sweet pots. I mean it has dex in it.

http://www.foodanddiet.com/NewFiles/splenda.html

[IBdmfkr]

Too much of anything could potentially be harmful. Even whey protein.

[CoreyTampa09]

Does Splenda, artificial sweetners and or sugar alchols cuase bloating and backup in your digestion.

[hawktribal]

tuna with mercury posioning, splenda bad for you... all these people can do as many studies as they want. i haven't heard of anyone on this board getting mercury poisoning or sick from splenda for that matter. enjoy the splenda bro.

[bigsd67]

i've been using splenda for a loooong time and I'm still here...poopin and all.

[usualsuspect]

Short term effects are normally tolerable. It is the long term effects which cause concern.

In sum, "if it comes from God, it's good. If it comes from man, it's bad".

I would look into Stevia instead.

[DNoMac]

I;ve read numerous medical studies that all concluded there are no significant negative effects from consuming splenda. I'll search for them and repost

[DNoMac]

Here's one

Department of Internal Medicine I of the University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany. [email protected]

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.

[DNoMac]

Another

Pine Court, Fairbourne, Cobham, Surrey KT11 2BT, UK.

Two tolerance studies were conducted in healthy human adult volunteers. The first study was an ascending dose study conducted in eight subjects, in which sucralose was administered at doses of 1, 2. 5, 5 and 10mg/kg at 48-hour intervals and followed by daily dosing at 2mg/kg for 3 days and 5mg/kg for 4 days. In the second study, subjects consumed either sucralose (n=77) or fructose (50g/day) (n=31) twice daily in single blind fashion. Sucralose dosage levels were 125mg/day for weeks 1-3, 250mg/day during weeks 4-7, and 500mg/day during weeks 8-12. No adverse experiences or clinically detectable effects were attributable to sucralose in either study. Similarly, haematology, serum biochemistry, urinalysis and EKG tracings were unaffected by sucralose administration. In the 13-week study, serial slit lamp ophthalmologic examination performed in a random subset of the study groups revealed no changes. Fasting and 2-hour post-dosing blood sucralose concentrations obtained daily during week 12 of the study revealed no rising trend for blood sucralose. Sucralose was well tolerated by human volunteers in single doses up to 10mg/kg/day and repeated doses increasing to 5mg/kg/day for 13 weeks. Based on these studies and the extensive animal safety database, there is no indication that adverse effects on human health would occur from frequent or long-term exposure to sucralose at the maximum anticipated levels of intake.

[usualsuspect]

The problem is splenda has not been around long enough to make an accurate conclusion about its long-term effects.

We evolved as species for millions of years without it. Suddenly Big Pharma manufactures (more like engineers) a new food and we're safe to assume that its long term effects are safe? Well not me...

Artificial sweeteners are bad for the human system. Period. Believe the FDA (they've got quite a great track record, don't they) or the people who have actually experienced the side effects. I personally used to get brief migraine-like headaches from aspartame. I used to think it was one particular brand of supplements until I started noticing it more often--this was as a 16-year-old.

DN, I have an accusation (in step with yours) about people who *do* use artificial sweeteners--they tend to be people who want something for nothing. Artificial sweeteners, lowfat diet, and the elliptical trainer. Recipe for failure AND poor health.

I also notice that they are more likely than not overweight and (assuming that artificial sweeteners actually "work" like they're supposed to) heading in the wrong direction bodyfat-wise. Judging by results, artificial sweeteners DON'T WORK.

People will go to any means to justify satisfying their sweet tooth.

[DNoMac]

I'd say overweight people are more at risk consuming sugar than sucralose. And who said artificial sweeteners cure obesity? It's just one of many steps in the right direction by reducing sugar consumption.

[usualsuspect]

It's just one of many steps in the right direction by reducing sugar consumption.

True.

I agree its a step in the right direction for the overweight and unhealthy.

However, the few of us who strive for optimal health and fitness, splenda is less than ideal.

The problem with these engineered foods is that we have a tendency to drown the baby.

Those doing the "engineering" do not usually have our best interests in mind, they are thinking about profit, market share, patent rights or some such. Artificial sugars are rushed to market in response to marketing needs and we (the consumer) only find out later that there were early indications of potential problems. Like margerine and other hydrogenated poly-unsaturates being marketed as lower saturated fat alternatives to butter. 20 years later the knowledge trickles out that hydrogenation is a much bigger health threat than saturated fat.

Splenda might turn out to be OK, but do you completely trust those who assure you now that it is? Remember the miracle product asbestos? A perfectly safe, inert material with some wonderfull heat resistance properties, how could it possibly be bad for you?

We should not be asking whether splenda (or any other Frankenfood) is OK to eat, rather we should be asking why we need it at all.

[IBdmfkr]

Quite possibly if your diet is clean enough the natural sugars in say jelly or other products that use spenda as a sweetener would probably be better taken in as they were.. 10-20grams of sugar in a strict diet isn't going to make much of a difference, especially if the sugar is taken with other complex carbs/proteins/fats which will in turn lower the GI.