Cat Forum banner

1 - 20 of 35 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,160 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Dangit anyway! For years I deliberately avoided diet pop ("soda" for just about anyone not living in North Dakota! :lol: ) because of the dangers caused by the various artificial sweeteners (NutraSweet, Equal, etc.).

Then came Splenda! I read a little bit about it being a derivative of sugar, therefore, tasting more like real sugar, so I decided to try it in my coffee. I loved it! I've since been putting Splenda in my coffee for about a year now.

I just stumbled onto an article talking about artificial sweeteners, INCLUDING Splenda, and all the dangers that go along with them. I don't understand the science behind it but basically, because of chemically altering sugar to come up with the product known as Splenda, it produces byproducts that have been shown to cause neurological damage in constant dosage (from what I could find, no specific dosage was mentioned). There was a whole slew of problems listed and I was shocked!

I may be jumping the gun but looking back on the past year I wonder if some of my emotional issues as well as a couple of physical complications can be traced back to Splenda.

What the heck are people supposed to do these days? It seems like the only good thing to put in your mouth is water, and that's even questionable depending on where you live!

From here on out I'm going back to plain ol' sugar in my coffee and back to regular Mt. Dew instead of Diet.

Well, now that I've gotten that little rant off my chest I must get going. :oops: Thanks for listening!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
28,623 Posts
I like Equal, but it gave me stomach pain, so I use sugar.

Artificial sweeteners are poisonous to dogs, I discovered. My son's dog got into his wife's gum, and we had to give her peroxide and call the vet. She had called me, and I checked it on Google. Since the dog threw up well, the vet said she didn't have to come in.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,681 Posts
You're right, a lot of the replacements for good old fashioned real food are pretty bad for you. The only advantage is for the manufacturers and distributors, who save money with adulterated ingredients with enhanced shelf lives. Sugar substitutes, hydrogenated oils, corn syrup, preservatives, texture enhancers, stabilizers, colorants, by-products...!

It's a pretty ironic lesson, isn't it - our great grandparents, grandparents and parents mostly ate real food, locally made and were healthier because of it. It's really best to aim for real sugar, butter, unbleached flour, etc. etc. in moderation...

Fran
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,331 Posts
have you ever tried Stevia? its an herbal type of sweetener that's super sweet and only used in small amounts. Something about the FDA doesn't let it sell as a sweetener so you can find it in the supplement section of natural food stores (I got mine at Whole Foods).

It doesn't replace sugar like Splenda, but can be used to sweeten drinks. I've only used it to make iced tea but liked it a lot. It really is super sweet though... and it may have been the type of tea I used but it took a second to kick in. The tea would be a little bitter at the beginning of each sip then get really sweet, but didn't have that super sugar syrupy taste to it.

Something worth looking into?
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
26,433 Posts
Seriously, with the amount of diet sodas as I have had to drink over the past many, many years, if there was anything seriously dangerous in the artificial sweeteners, I'd be dead by now. 8O
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,177 Posts
marie73 said:
Seriously, with the amount of diet sodas as I have had to drink over the past many, many years, if there was anything seriously dangerous in the artificial sweeteners, I'd be dead by now. 8O
Bingo!!! When it comes to what is good for you and what is not good for you, I have no faith whatsoever in these studies with sweeteners or most any other foods!! :evil:

For those in the USA, go to the store and look at the box of Sweet and Lo. That is saccharin in the USA. Now waitaminit class, didn't saccharin have a warning label about the dangers of it? Now guess what? That label is GONE! Why is that? Because the rocket scientists that conducted the research on the rats injected them with so much saccharin that it would be the equivalent of you or I drinking...are you ready for this...ONE HUNDRED CANS of soda every day for the next several years!!! Can you say Skewed Results??? The results of that testing had more garbage in it than a landfill! So if it was proven that the research for for saccharin was flawed, how can I fully trust any studies on sucralose???

Saccharin was NOT the only sweetener vilified by lab rats. What about cyclamate? Wasn't that considered a no-no? Yet...if ingesting cyclamate is certain death, then WHY do many other countries, including Canada, still approve it? I do not see scores of deaths from cyclamate originating from north of the 49th. Something is just not right with those studies.

Now of course people are different. People can have bad reactions to ANYTHING. So due to our body chemistries being different from one person to the next, I could consume a ½cup of sucralose every day for the rest of my life with no health complications. Yet my friend next to me can sniff it and get ill. That is how we are. I can eat peanut butter all day but the next door neighbor could have a peanut allergy and develop a severe reaction from tasting less than one millilitre of peanut butter. Does that mean peanut butter is dangerous?

It all boils down to do YOU have your own issues with it? If so, then common sense tells you not to drink the stuff. And to be honest Jo, Splenda may have absolutely nothing to do with your aforementioned condition. We really just do not have the information to make that call...

All this garbage about artificial sweeteners being bad, good, back to bad, then finally good reminds me about what some scientists said about eggs a some years back. Oh they were sooooo bad for you. The cholesterol would make your arteries harder than tank armor. Now eggs are considered one of nature's most perfect foods. Tell me, just WHAT the heck gives here??? :evil:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,177 Posts
hypertweeky said:
Moderation is really the key! If you had a ton of broccoli You'd get sick too, so there!!
Exactly my point! :) Heck Maria, people can even get sick from consuming too much water!!!

Too bad those crackpots doing the research did not use moderation and adjust their injections to better simulate the amount of saccharing a human would consume.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,284 Posts
Donaldjr1969 said:
Too bad those crackpots doing the research did not use moderation and adjust their injections to better simulate the amount of saccharing a human would consume.
My understanding is that this is a very standard method of testing chemicals for carcinogenicity, known as "chronic rodent bioassay."

It's true that you can't necessarily draw conclusions about the risk of cancer in humans at smaller doses from such studies, and I think some people are starting to question whether this is really the best was to test a suspected carcingoen.

However, the scientists were by no means "crackpots" for using a completely standard testing procedure.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
26,433 Posts
I drink at LEAST one 2-litre bottle of diet soda a day, sometimes two. :oops:
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
26,433 Posts
I don't drink caffeine sodas as home as I have wicked insomnia. I used to have my two Diet Dr. Pepper's to start my day at work, though. I don't drink coffee.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,533 Posts
God. I couldn't cope without my first cup of coffee. They have it free at work until about 11am. I bleed it dry :lol:
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
26,433 Posts
Sodas were free at work, too. One of the few things I really miss! :D

Snapple, orange juice, apple juice, V8, and lots of other beverages were free, also.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,074 Posts
Everything's bad for you if you look hard enough.

I have everything that is supposed to kill you (except tobacco and illegal drugs), and apart from a genetic heart condition (which has been solved), I'm fine.

I actually eat a large amount of crisps and junk food, yet I'm on the borderline of being underweight.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,177 Posts
Bethany said:
My understanding is that this is a very standard method of testing chemicals for carcinogenicity, known as "chronic rodent bioassay."

It's true that you can't necessarily draw conclusions about the risk of cancer in humans at smaller doses from such studies, and I think some people are starting to question whether this is really the best was to test a suspected carcingoen.

However, the scientists were by no means "crackpots" for using a completely standard testing procedure.
They are crackpots in my mind because...rodents and humans have totally biological mechanisms. Sure the rats developed bladder tumors from the excessive saccharin, but it was later proven that those tumors developed through a biological process not possible in humans. And as I mentioned before, were the dosages of saccharin "weight proportional" to humans and their average consumption? Or did all rats get the same high dosages? What were the control specifications?

So to me, that is being a crackpot when you leave variables so wide open that one could drive a 6-trailer road train through them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,284 Posts
Donaldjr1969 said:
They are crackpots in my mind because...rodents and humans have totally biological mechanisms. Sure the rats developed bladder tumors from the excessive saccharin, but it was later proven that those tumors developed through a biological process not possible in humans. And as I mentioned before, were the dosages of saccharin "weight proportional" to humans and their average consumption? Or did all rats get the same high dosages? What were the control specifications?

So to me, that is being a crackpot when you leave variables so wide open that one could drive a 6-trailer road train through them.
No, of course the doses weren't weight proportional. That's the point of these rodent assays -- they give the maximum dose that the rats or mice can tolerate, not weight-proportional to what a human would eat. It's a totally standard procedure. I don't understand calling someone insulting names for using a totally standard procedure in their area of research to do their work.

Also note that the fact that the bladder cancer was produced by a different mechanism in rodents was not known at the time: it was a later discovery.

If you want to blame anyone, blame the legislators and the media, who are the ones who always freak out and over-react to these things. In general the scientists who do these studies understand the limitations: it's everyone else who flips out over them.

My latest favorite: polycarbonate plastic bottles. Scientists have recently found that the chemical everyone is worried about is also processed by a totally different mechanism in rodents than in primates, so there's little reason to think any findings of dangers in mice will translate to humans. But the media and hence the public are still flipping out over it.

My understanding is that there's general agreement that artificial sweeteners are probably safe for human adults in any concentration that we're likely to eat it. I believe some neuroscientists are concerned about possible effects of long-term Nutrasweet on infants and young children (as aspartame is broken down into a neurotoxin in the human body).
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,177 Posts
Bethany said:
No, of course the doses weren't weight proportional. That's the point of these rodent assays -- they give the maximum dose that the rats or mice can tolerate, not weight-proportional to what a human would eat. It's a totally standard procedure. I don't understand calling someone insulting names for using a totally standard procedure in their area of research to do their work.
Consider this. If the standard assays will not give results that are MEANINGFUL for human applications, then what is the point of the research in the first place? Why bother conducting a rodent assay? That is the point. They KNOW that it is not going to directly make any meaningful correlation between yet they continue to conduct such research. To me, that is irresponsible. And I will always feel that irresponsible science/research will damage the reputation of the best out there. Hence the term crackpots.

Bethany, here is a little tidbit for you. I am well aware of research because...I used to be a chemistry/polymer sciences major. I took fairly advanced lab courses where I worked with a lot of stuff short of fluorine. I also knew that in my Qualitative Analysis, I could skew the results without doing the full tests to identify my solution's component elements. And with labs like Quantitative Analysis, Organic, and biochemistry, it was so easy to skew your results it was not even funny. So that would make ME a crackpot for basically doing things like scientific shortcuts to obtain results needed. So if you feel I am being insulting, I am insulting myself because I have done those irresponsible procedures.

Also note that the fact that the bladder cancer was produced by a different mechanism in rodents was not known at the time: it was a later discovery.
How much later if you do not mind me asking? I am sure that the standard rodent assay you mentioned does not call for further examination upon finding the bladder cancer. Fair enough. But to verify the results of their research, wouldn't it have been a more prudent step to conduct further research as to the cause and mechanisms BEFORE hitting the press with it?

If you want to blame anyone, blame the legislators and the media, who are the ones who always freak out and over-react to these things. In general the scientists who do these studies understand the limitations: it's everyone else who flips out over them.
My favorite one was with ephedra. After Steve Bechler passed away, it was found he had ephedra in his system. So the media and the laughable director of H&HS, Tommy Thompson, and the FDA joined forces to ban ephedra. Yet Mr Bechler had pre-existing conditions that most likely would have contributed to his passing had he never even touched the stuff.

And yes, the media is a joke. And the general public has to be the most gullible group out there. They actually follow what the press says like a bunch of blind lemmings running off a cliff! But I do agree that the researchers know the limitations. It is just the irresponsible ones that want their 15 minutes of fame by rushing a new finding to the press before proper secondary testing can be done that feed the hungry media. Remember 4-5 years ago when low carb this and low carb that was all the rage? What happened to it? As soon as it was out, it seemed to fall out of favor. Why is that? Did somebody fail to report that very active people NEED carbohydrates?

What I would like to see more of is when the media distorts such findings, to have the research team come on a news program, etc and clarify the situation.

My latest favorite: polycarbonate plastic bottles. Scientists have recently found that the chemical everyone is worried about is also processed by a totally different mechanism in rodents than in primates, so there's little reason to think any findings of dangers in mice will translate to humans. But the media and hence the public are still flipping out over it.
As an employee in the plastic injection molding industry, I can say that the so called breakdown of pthalates and whatnot is way overblown. Besides, have different brands of the same type of resin been tested? Differences in the polymer chain of such resins can react differently. Also, when those bottles were made, did the plastic get slightly too hot? Many plastics, polyvinyl chloride being the worst, rapidly decompose when the temperature inside the barrel/screw is too hot.

My understanding is that there's general agreement that artificial sweeteners are probably safe for human adults in any concentration that we're likely to eat it. I believe some neuroscientists are concerned about possible effects of long-term Nutrasweet on infants and young children (as aspartame is broken down into a neurotoxin in the human body).
And thus, more long term studies NEED to be done before such generalized research can be accepted. As we both agree, it was not until later that the rodent tumors formation was not of a normal mechanism. Because if inconclusive/inconsequential/incomplete research makes it into the mainstream, then the public can end up doing something that is bad when it is not bad for them. Worse yet, they could do something bad to their health that was initially reported as good.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,729 Posts
I have half a cup of coffee a day, but that's it, the milk causes too many bowel movements, Soda or Pop? Heck no I have ADHD, I can live without it, as a matter of fact I took a sip of Mark's dirty coke (name for non diet soda) and my goodness it was so fizzy and super sweet.
I like ice tea and water, I drink a lot of it, but I have to watch my caffeine intake, so I drink decaf Ice Tea, otherwise I am a mess.
 
1 - 20 of 35 Posts
Top