Your Take on Sweeteners

[acidboy]

Splenda, Nutra-sweet, and whatever brands out there: What's your opinion? I've read and been nagged about how dangerous they are to you. Is this true? Even in minute quantities?

 

[WN2]

Don't know about how dangerous they are, but most of them taste horrible. Xylitol, followed by sorbitol, is by far the best sweetener in existence, but sugar beats them all.

 

[Tokyo Slim]

I'm trying to get high off it, not sprinkle it on my cornflakes.

 

[Nick M]

Here's a couple links:

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a961129.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy

I think it's a health-hysteria-fueled myth.

As a side note, I spent the last few weeks trying to find a sugar-free soda which doesn't have that weird chemical tang to it. One does not exist. Minimal sugar good, zero sugar bad.

 

[skalogre]

Splenda is the only one I can deal with.
But yes, who knows what thelong term effects would be.

 

[Joffrey]

I hate sweeteners. I stick to the natural **** - sugar.

 

[vanity]

Splenda has actually been around the longest. I like it b/c you can bake with it. Saccharin doesn't work well with high temperatures. It gets all funky and eventually turns into formeldehyde.

I think they're all safe for the msot part. If you're injecting a 2 ounce rat with 3-4grams of anything, they're going to have health problems.

 

[Lady Savage]

Though it is not offered in coffee shops Agave nectur is the best sweetner and it's good for you. It comes from a cactus.

 

[Bandwagonesque]

What about stevia?

 

[Quirk]

Originally Posted by Lady Savage

Though it is not offered in coffee shops Agave nectur is the best sweetner and it's good for you. It comes from a cactus.
Yeah, that's pretty much all I use, though sometimes brown sugar in a pinch. Good stuff.

 

[whodini]

I was raised on Equal and although I didn't really care for the taste at first, I realized how quickly it would sweeten my coffee. So out of the convenience of not having my coffee taste like crap to begin with and then taste like a bag of sugar at the end, I began to use Equal. Thankfully Splenda came around and it's all I use.

I'm sure it's related but I also grew up not liking regular soda, lots of frosting on a cake, a lot of chocolate, etc. which was well before I tried artificial sweeteners. It all just made me feel sick.

Nick M mentioned not finding a good "diet" drink, but I'm convinced the Diet Coke sold here in Costa Rica is by far better than any I've ever had. It tastes a lot more like real sugar and the rumor's been that they originally used a splenda-like sweetner instead of NutriSweet which had a deal with Coke in the States.

I do, however, prefer my alcohol mixed with regular soda. I find diet drinks taste funny when mixed.

 

[Full Canvas]

Originally Posted by acidicboy

Splenda, Nutra-sweet, and whatever brands out there: What's your opinion? I've read and been nagged about how dangerous they are to you. Is this true? Even in minute quantities?

Even though NEXUS magazine is known for its goofy topics and general appeal to the UFO crowd, the magazine does regularly feature interesting articles about food and nutrition. The articles are annotated. Thorough citations are offered. The points of view offered are generally not published elsewhere or they are offered only anecdotally.

Most brand name artificial sweeteners are thoroughly dangerous substances in any quantity as far as I am concerned. We only use honey, molasses, and raw centrifugal sugar in our home.

Aspartame is the technical name for the brand names, NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, and Equal-Measure. Lots of nasty excitotoxins.
http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/aspartame.html

Stevia - You Be the Judge
http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/stevia.html

Xylitol - A Hopeful Alternative
http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/xylitol.html

Mention of Soy Ice Cream and Sweets - Tangentially related
http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/soydangers.html


_______________

 

[Full Canvas]

Originally Posted by whodini

Thankfully Splenda came around and it's all I use.

Splenda – It’s no secret that Splenda (sucralose) starts off as a sugar molecule; it is what occurs in the laboratory that concerns many people. Sucralose is a synthetic chemical that was invented in a laboratory. In the five-step process of making sucralose, three chlorine molecules are added to a sucrose (sugar) molecule. The sucrose molecule is a disaccharide that contains two single sugars (glucose and fructose) bound together.

The chemical process to make sucralose alters the composition of the sugar so much that it is converted to a fructo-galactose molecule. This type of molecule does not occur in nature and the human body is unable to metabolize it. This is the basis of the manufacturer’s claim that Splenda has no calories. If your body can’t absorb it, no calories can be left in the body.

Nearly 15% of sucralose is absorbed by the body’s digestive tract and is stored in the body. That is an average number from studies. Some people absorb and store more or less than that.

Insufficient studies on sucralose are complete. So, the long-term effects of sucralose are unknown.

The paragraphs above are pretty much a paraphrase/summation of the general concern or alarm about Splenda.
______________________

 

[Dmax]

I never use any artificial sweeteners, I also try very hard not to buy anything that contains High Fructose Corn Syrup. HFC syrop gives me heart burn and I try not to consume any food which has been processed/manufacturers to such high degree.

I don't add any sugar to my coffee and tea. At some point I did. I gradually reduced the amount of sugar I added to coffee and tea until I did not need any. On rare occasion I buy soft drinks for my family I look for the ones that contain cane sugar (Boylan's Cane Cola is very good).

 

[whodini]

Originally Posted by Full Canvas

Splenda – It’s no secret that Splenda (sucralose) starts off as a sugar molecule; it is what occurs in the laboratory that concerns many people. Sucralose is a synthetic chemical that was invented in a laboratory. In the five-step process of making sucralose, three chlorine molecules are added to a sucrose (sugar) molecule. The sucrose molecule is a disaccharide that contains two single sugars (glucose and fructose) bound together.

The chemical process to make sucralose alters the composition of the sugar so much that it is converted to a fructo-galactose molecule. This type of molecule does not occur in nature and the human body is unable to metabolize it. This is the basis of the manufacturer’s claim that Splenda has no calories. If your body can’t absorb it, no calories can be left in the body.

Nearly 15% of sucralose is absorbed by the body’s digestive tract and is stored in the body. That is an average number from studies. Some people absorb and store more or less than that.

Insufficient studies on sucralose are complete. So, the long-term effects of sucralose are unknown.

The paragraphs above are pretty much a paraphrase/summation of the general concern or alarm about Splenda.
______________________
Their information may be well and good, but what alarms me more than the possible unknown side effects of Splenda is Nexus' front page:

NEXUS is an international bi-monthly alternative news magazine, covering the fields of: Health Alternatives; Suppressed Science; Earth's Ancient Past; UFOs & the Unexplained; and Government Cover-Ups.

Yeah, great.