shehorn
Silver Member
Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 309
Report abuse
|
 Posted: 05/17/06 - 06:28 Post subject: |
  |
|
I eat food with nutrasweet. You can not use it if you are PKU. Food with sorbitol and manitol is also very tasty and low in calories. Saccharin leaves bitter aftertaste in mouth, so I’d suggest you to avoid it. But my opinion is that sugar is natural food, and all these sweeteners are less caloric, but artificial. I read an article about aspartame and it made me less sweets-dependent. It’s more important to keep your health condition, than to lose more on weight.
|
|
Justin_Toronto
Newbie
Joined: 26 May 2006
Posts: 6
Location: Canada
Report abuse
|
| Posted: 05/26/06 - 17:11 Post subject: |
|
|
Here, let me outline and compare your options.
NutraSweet/Equal
The active ingredient in NutraSweet (the pink packets) is Aspartame. Aspartame is a an synthetic sweetner, if I'm not mistaken... consisting of L-Aspartyl-L-Phenylalanine Menthyl, Ester). (Also note that Equal is also just Aspartame. But adds Dextrose [sugar] and maltodextrin) The Aspartame breaks down to Methanol (a type of alcohol), then quickly converts again to Formaldehyde. There is no conversion to glucose. However, Formaldehyde is toxic to the body and after extended use can bind to proteins in your liver, kidney and brain tissues which can cause migranes, tremors, depression, and in after even more use eye damage, seiures, kidney failure, and recently concluded brain tumors.
Yes.. Nutrasweet is good, no conversion to Glucose... but it's not something you should consider as a long-term alternative. So what can you use?
Stevia
Look for Stevia. It's a noncaloric / non-synthetic natural sweetener. And has still not been related to any health problems at all. You won't be able to find it at the supermarket, get it from your health store. It's marketed as a nutritional supplement simply to get around the FDA. Do your research on Stevia...it's 300x sweeter than sugar, been around for decades, doesn't cause cavities, suitable for diabetics, is very popular in countries like China and Japan. (In fact, the majority of their diet drinks (including Coca Cola) use stevia instead of Nutrasweet...)
The reason Stevia is not approved by the FDA is simply because it's not produced in the US, it comes from Paraguay. High-intensity sweeteners constitutes a $1.5-billion/year market, which would make more Economic sense to keep in the U.S. It has only been approved for reception to U.S. vitamin stores in 1995, however they are not allowed to mention anything about the 'Sweetness' of Stevia on the product labels.
Splenda
Splenda is not a natural sweetener, in fact it is a chemically modified version of Sucrose. They took the hydroxyl from sugar molecules and replaced them with chlorine atoms. (This is how they can advertise Splenda as a low-calorie sweetener made from 'Sugar' and tastes like Sugar.) Basically, it just makes the bond so strong that the body is unable to absorb the vast majority of it. It simply goes in, and is excreted in the urine. Since it can't be broken down, this also means the bacteria in your mouth can't convert it to acid, which in turn means less cavities. Look 'Ma No Cavities!
Is it safe? Well, think about it... even if it isn't safe --- most of it is not even absorbed by the body. And since it's extremely sweet, you don't need a lot of it. It is 600x sweeter than sugar, and naturally has no calories at all. (Sugar is a carbohydrate) But since it's so sweet, they had to add a Carbohydrate carrier to cut the sweetness, which then adds around 2 calories per teaspoon. This is still minimal though.
Splenda has been approved only 7 years ago in the U.S., however no side effects have been publically discovered in that time. It took the FDA 20 years of research before this approval took place, which included reviewing data from research on 110 humans and animals. Splenda has been approved in Canada since 1991. However, is still pending review in most European countries.
So what exactly did take the FDA so long to approve this product? As I mentioned, no public side effects have been discovered, however closed-circuit studies on lab animals have yielded some interesting results, the next section is quoted:
Quote:
The FDA acknowledges that sucralose "is produced at an approximate purity of 98%." While that may sound pretty pure, just what is in that other 2%? It turns out that the final sucralose product contains small amounts of potentially dangerous substances such as:
Heavy Metals (e.g., Lead)
Arsenic
Triphenilphosphine Oxide
Methanol
Chlorinated Disaccharides
Chlorinated Monosaccharide
Few human studies of safety have been published on sucralose. One small study of diabetic patients using the sweetener showed a statistically significant increase in glycosylated hemoglobin (Hba1C), which is a marker of long-term blood glucose levels and is used to assess glycemic control in diabetic patients. According to the FDA, "increases in glycosolation in hemoglobin imply lessening of control of diabetes.
Research in animals has shown that sucralose can cause many problems in rats, mice, and rabbits, such as:
Shrunken thymus glands (up to 40% shrinkage)
Enlarged liver and kidneys.
Atrophy of lymph follicles in the spleen and thymus
Increased cecal weight
Reduced growth rate
Decreased red blood cell count
Hyperplasia of the pelvis
Extension of the pregnancy period
Aborted pregnancy
Decreased fetal body weights and placental weights
Diarrhea
Conclusion
NutraSweet is obviously a very bad choice, no matter how you look at it. Equal is the same. Splenda has some fairly bad side effects in large doses and is the most inexpensive sugar alternative. Stevia is the best choice, however you have to buy it at a health food store... and it's expensive. Now you're informed... the choice is yours. |
|
