 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / May 2006Splenda (sucralose) warning
Hi LCers, If you are feeling tired, weak, lethargic, panicky, numb, depressed, confused or are having palpitations, blurred vision and headaches, it may not be the diet but rather the Splenda. I recently switched from Aspartame to Splenda because of bad reactions and felt even worse. I have been off for three days and am back working and exercising. But don't take my word for it - do a search, or better yet, stop using it for a week or so and see if you feel better. P.T. I may do that. I eat probably too many artificial sweeteners like Splenda as it is. > Hi LCers, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > P.T. > I may do that. I eat probably too many artificial sweeteners like > Splenda as it is. Hi Dr. Primer. And who knows what happens when you mix them! I was putting Splenda in my morning coffee and then popping down the Diet Coke with Aspartame at night. I am going to look into Stevia. P.T. >> Hi LCers, >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> >> P.T. Ridiculous.On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 19:16:00 GMT, "P.T." <pt@yahoo.com> wrote: |> I may do that. I eat probably too many artificial sweeteners like |> Splenda as it is. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] |>> |>> P.T. Here's a link for you, P..T: http://tinyurl.com/o8laj > Here's a link for you, P..T: http://tinyurl.com/o8laj You are so funny, Peter. ~Carol Ann > Ridiculous.On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 19:16:00 GMT, "P.T." <pt@yahoo.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Here's a link for you, P..T: http://tinyurl.com/o8laj Hmm, the subtle yet direct approach. LOL. >Hi LCers, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >P.T. I've no problem with either. >>Hi LCers, >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I've no problem with either. Ditto. I love Splenda! -Phil > Hi LCers, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > P.T. I've no problem with either. I sometimes get weak, lethargic, panicky, numb, depressed, confused .... and more. I keep on eating my artificial sweets and I get over whatever it was that caused the above symptoms. But don't take my word for it - do a search, or better yet, continue using artificial sweetners for a week or so and see if you too eventually feel better.  Signature1) Eat Till SATISFIED, Not STUFFED... Atkins repeated 9 times in the book 2) Exercise: It's Non-Negotiable..... Chapter 22 title, Atkins book 3) Don't Diet Without Supplemental Nutrients... Chapter 23 title, Atkins book 4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or Other) Why am I not surprised? I've been here since '98 and the evil demon sweetener with the laundry list (including all the list below PT attributes to Splenda) of symptoms attributed to it was nutrasweet. Now that Splenda has begun to surplant it in many products it's going to get the same bashing. The more things change, the more they stay the same. I wonder if the nutrasweet Betty Markle schtick has been modded and "sucralose" swapped for "aspartame" yet? Meh. Carmen > Hi LCers, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > P.T. > Why am I not surprised? > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Carmen Well if you are not having any problems, then go ahead. Some people are sensitive to artificial sweeteners. I have a friend who has epilepsy and her doctor forbids her to use them. P.T. >> Hi LCers, >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> >> P.T. |> Why am I not surprised? |> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] |sensitive to artificial sweeteners. I have a friend who has epilepsy and her |doctor forbids her to use them. <snip> I've been using saccharine for years, prefer it to other AS's in my daily coffee. In diet sodas and other products I prefer the taste of Splenda to Aspartame, so I use that. I never listen to the Henny Penny's; I go by what tastes best to me. p.s. I also eat *gasp* the evil BACON, nirtites and all! BTW, good to see you Carmen, you haven't been around too much lately. > |> Why am I not surprised? > |> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > BTW, good to see you Carmen, you haven't been around too much lately. Hi Peter, I spend most of my time in alt.true-crime. I'd been around here since '98, and just needed a change of scenery I guess. The oldtimers have disappeared for the most part - even Jamie, who I checked up on and she's fine - and it's way too quiet in here. The post count is painfully low now. Sigh. Even JC has been slacking. <G> Carmen >...................... I'd been around here since > '98, and just needed a change of scenery I guess. The oldtimers have > disappeared for the most part - carmen, do you know where deb went? > >...................... I'd been around here since > > '98, and just needed a change of scenery I guess. The oldtimers have > > disappeared for the most part - > > carmen, > do you know where deb went? No, but I'm going to go looking. Found her! http://scall0way.blogspot.com/ You knew I could. <G> Carmen thanks carmen........................... >> >...................... I'd been around here since >> > '98, and just needed a change of scenery I guess. The oldtimers have [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Carmen |> |> Why am I not surprised? |> |> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] | |Carmen i haven't been posting here too much either for the past couple of months. I've been spending all my time with a different nick at alt.tv.american-idol! But... we need both of you here. :-) -- Cheri >i haven't been posting here too much either for the past couple of >months. I've been spending all my time with a different nick at >alt.tv.american-idol! >I spend most of my time in alt.true-crime. I'd been around here since >'98, and just needed a change of scenery I guess. The oldtimers have >disappeared for the most part - even Jamie, who I checked up on and >she's fine - and it's way too quiet in here. The post count is >painfully low now. Sigh. Even JC has been slacking. <G> I just recently popped my head back in for a look-see. My depression was getting pretty bad and I just couldn't cope with much so I dumped nearly all my newsgroups and just 'sulked'. Things are getting better, slowly and with help, and I decided to come back. Given how 'easily' my depression gets exacerbated, though, I don't know how long for. Aramanth > I just recently popped my head back in for a look-see. My depression > was getting pretty bad and I just couldn't cope with much so I dumped [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > back. Given how 'easily' my depression gets exacerbated, though, I > don't know how long for. Always good to see your name pop up on the list. SignatureRudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond. "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!" -Emiliano Zapata Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at: http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm > Things are getting better, slowly and with help, and I decided to > come back. Given how 'easily' my depression gets exacerbated, > though, I don't know how long for. Do you find that low-carb helps your depression? It seems to help mine, mainly because of the extra energy, I think. I don't think it's going to eliminate it like it has my heartburn and headaches, though. SignatureAaron -- 285/235/200 -- http://www.myspace.com/aaronbaugher >> Things are getting better, slowly and with help, and I decided to >> come back. Given how 'easily' my depression gets exacerbated, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >mine, mainly because of the extra energy, I think. I don't think it's >going to eliminate it like it has my heartburn and headaches, though. Hard to tell. I've been LC since May of 1998 (yep, almost at my 8th LC anniversary) but the depression was triggered by a concatenation of hideous events in mid 2004. I stick to LC because I feel better on it and because as a diabetic (T2) I have no choice if I want to retain limbs, eyesight, kidneys etc so I don't know how much worse my depression would be if I was eating a lot of carbs. If only LC worked for me when it came to losing weight! Aramanth Try eating less and exercising more. >>> Things are getting better, slowly and with help, and I decided to >>> come back. Given how 'easily' my depression gets exacerbated, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Aramanth |> |> Why am I not surprised? |> |> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] |> |> BTW, good to see you Carmen, you haven't been around too much lately. |Hi Peter, |I spend most of my time in alt.true-crime. |Carmen You always were the ASDLC private eye, digging up the dirt on the trolls and spammers! The information on Splenda is available, do the research yourself. > |> |> Why am I not surprised? > |> |> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > You always were the ASDLC private eye, digging up the dirt on the > trolls and spammers! > > Why am I not surprised? > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > sensitive to artificial sweeteners. I have a friend who has epilepsy and her > doctor forbids her to use them. Some people are allergic to peanuts. It'd be rather goofy of me to come on a newsgroup with an international audience and advise everyone to avoid peanuts based on a list of symptoms that could emanate from a vast array of other sources. Your friend's doctor could have advised your friend to avoid AS for any number of reasons, valid or otherwise. Doctors are human, and some of them are biased, just like everyone else. Carmen > >> Hi LCers, > >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >> > >> P.T. > Hi LCers, > > If you are feeling tired, weak, lethargic, panicky, numb, depressed, > confused or are having palpitations, blurred vision and headaches, it may > not be the diet but rather the Splenda. Sounds like me after being the life of the party the night before. Tired, weak and lethargic because I drank too much and went to bed too late, panicky because of the vague recollections of a dream where I was throwing my underwear at someone in a crowded room , and wondering 'was it really a dream' because I don't seem to have any underwear on, numb because I went to sleep on the sofa and woke up on the floor, confused because I was sure that the party was at my house but I don't recognise the room, blurred vision because I am wearing smudged sunnies at six am, and a headache because of the booze. It may not be the Splenda, but rather the lifestyle. ;) I recently switched from Aspartame > to Splenda because of bad reactions and felt even worse. I have been off for > three days and am back working and exercising. But don't take my word for > it - do a search, or better yet, stop using it for a week or so and see if > you feel better. Yeah, good idea, I'll stop partying until next weekend and see if I feel better. When in doubt, engage brain. Considering the tens of millions of people using millions of products containing Splenda, I am sure that if it had these effects, someone would have noticed by now. Maybe it is just you, perhaps you are allergic to it. Just a thought. Susan. Actually, as there are already some Susans resident here, I'll switch to Suze. It is what everyone calls me. Suze > When in doubt, engage brain. Considering the tens of millions of people > using millions of products containing Splenda, I am sure that if it had > these effects, someone would have noticed by now. Maybe it is just you, > perhaps you are allergic to it. Just a thought. > > Suze What is reminds me of is the post about "will estrogens in soy cause men to become feminine" and then you think of all of the Asians who have been eating soy products for years and years and years...and yet....no big stories of odd looking (or behaving) Asian men. Pat in TX ::: When in doubt, engage brain. Considering the tens of millions of ::: people using millions of products containing Splenda, I am sure [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] :: have been eating soy products for years and years and years...and :: yet....no big stories of odd looking (or behaving) Asian men. They keep them in the back room, Pat. :: Pat in TX > :: What is reminds me of is the post about "will estrogens in soy cause > :: men to become feminine" and then you think of all of the Asians who > :: have been eating soy products for years and years and years...and > :: yet....no big stories of odd looking (or behaving) Asian men. > > They keep them in the back room, Pat. And you would know--- how? ::::: What is reminds me of is the post about "will estrogens in soy ::::: cause men to become feminine" and then you think of all of the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] :: :: And you would know--- how? I don't know at all -- I was kidding! :) > ::::: What is reminds me of is the post about "will estrogens in soy > ::::: cause men to become feminine" and then you think of all of the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I don't know at all -- I was kidding! :) Yeah, yeah. Methinks thou doest protest too much. > When in doubt, engage brain. Considering the tens of millions of people > using millions of products containing Splenda... And what a healthy bunch they are!! >I am sure that if it had these effects, someone would have noticed by now. Do the Google search. It doesn't cost a thing. || "Susan Robinson" <null@void.> wrote in message news:445011cc$0$507$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-03.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au... ||| When in doubt, engage brain. Considering the tens of ||| millions of people ||| using millions of products containing Splenda... || || And what a healthy bunch they are!! Which most likely has nothing to do with Splenda. ||| I am sure that if it had these effects, someone would have ||| noticed by now. || || Do the Google search. It doesn't cost a thing. I am sure there is a lot of good information on the internet, and of course all of it is true and accurate. http://www.seanbonner.com/blog/archives/001857.php Then of course we always have Mad Betty and her followers. BJ Signature-- Read: http://home.swbell.net/bjtexas/SS/ "Last week, I stated this woman was the ugliest woman I had ever seen. I have since been visited by her sister, and now wish to withdraw that statement." -- Mark Twain :: P.T. wrote: ::: Hi LCers, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] :: :: It may not be the Splenda, but rather the lifestyle. ;) Some jpegs might help with the visuals......or not! It's not the aspartame or the sucralose, it's the black helicopters beaming debilitating waves into your head. Try a double strength aluminum foil hat to ward off these attacks (shiny side out, of course). HTH > Hi LCers, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > P.T. absurd > Hi LCers, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > P.T. and more absurd than the last 500 warnings. :-) -- Cheri Cubit wrote in message ... >absurd > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> >> P.T. What's missing here from PT is the context. We don't know what diet this person is following, for how long, etc. So, it's impossible to begin to judge if this is credible or not. On the other hand, I would not be completely dismissive of reports that some people may have reactions to certain artificial sweetners. Some people do have different reactions to all kinds of foods, allergies to them, etc. So, I think it's quite possible that a small percentage of people could have a problem with Sucralose. Also of interest is that PT is now looking at Stevia. This is probably the sweetner that has has the least, if any, safety studies done. :: What's missing here from PT is the context. We don't know what diet :: this person is following, for how long, etc. So, it's impossible to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] :: So, I think it's quite possible that a small percentage of people :: could have a problem with Sucralose. I understand that people do have issues with certain foods and substances. However, is that a good reason to issue a warning? :: Also of interest is that PT is now looking at Stevia. This is :: probably the sweetner that has has the least, if any, safety studies :: done. > :: What's missing here from PT is the context. We don't know what diet > :: this person is following, for how long, etc. So, it's impossible to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I understand that people do have issues with certain foods and substances. > However, is that a good reason to issue a warning? "Made from sugar" but but what they DON'T say is that three of the molecules are turned into chlorine. But if it's sweet and on the market, it must be good and safe. > :: Also of interest is that PT is now looking at Stevia. This is > :: probably the sweetner that has has the least, if any, safety studies > :: done. > > :: What's missing here from PT is the context. We don't know what diet > > :: this person is following, for how long, etc. So, it's impossible to [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > are turned into chlorine. But if it's sweet and on the market, it must be > good and safe. They are not "turned into" chlorine. O-H molecules cannot be converted into another element. They are *replaced* with chlorine. There's a very big difference. Chlorine atoms, the very same sort of chlorine atoms you suck down in far greater amounts when you shake the salt shaker over your plate. You know, a little bit of education goes a long way towards easing hysteria. Carmen > > :: Also of interest is that PT is now looking at Stevia. This is > > :: probably the sweetner that has has the least, if any, safety studies > > :: done. >> "Made from sugar" but but what they DON'T say is that three of the >> molecules [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > shaker over your plate. You know, a little bit of education goes a > long way towards easing hysteria. Correction noted. But does that make it safe? >> > :: Also of interest is that PT is now looking at Stevia. This is >> > :: probably the sweetner that has has the least, if any, safety studies >> > :: done. :::: "Made from sugar" but but what they DON'T say is that three of the :::: molecules [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] :: :: Correction noted. But does that make it safe? What makes it unsafe? The fact that you're sensitive to it? Well, I'd say quit using it. It doesn't bother me, though, and it's a way better option than SUGAR for me, a T2D. ::::::: Also of interest is that PT is now looking at Stevia. This is ::::::: probably the sweetner that has has the least, if any, safety ::::::: studies done. >>"Made from sugar" but but what they DON'T say is that three of the molecules >>are turned into chlorine. But if it's sweet and on the market, it must be [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Carmen Actually this seems to be a case of a little bit of education being the motivation for hysteria, or at least near hysterical WARNING. Don't forget to warn people that one of the poison gasses of World War I was Chlorine. Since Salt is Soduim Chloride NaCl ... then when you eat salt you are eating poison. So, PT should also be arguing that Salt is a poison and should not be eaten. The common Salt substitute is Potassium Chloride, so it must be just as much poison. :-) A little bit of education is enough to generate false hysteria. Recently a major USA study on humans found aspartame to be quite safe, except for the identified class of people with a specific disorder of amino acid metabolism. So, those that hate the idea of artificial sweetners have been encouraged to move on to the next candidate. WOLF, WOLF, WOLF ... actually calling "Wolf" wasn't that much fun. Signature1) Eat Till SATISFIED, Not STUFFED... Atkins repeated 9 times in the book 2) Exercise: It's Non-Negotiable..... Chapter 22 title, Atkins book 3) Don't Diet Without Supplemental Nutrients... Chapter 23 title, Atkins book 4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or Other) > Recently a major USA study on humans found aspartame to be quite safe, > except for the identified class of people with a specific disorder of > amino acid metabolism. Many cigarette smokers can live to a ripe old age. >>Recently a major USA study on humans found aspartame to be quite safe, >>except for the identified class of people with a specific disorder of >>amino acid metabolism. > > Many cigarette smokers can live to a ripe old age. However, there is no randomized clinical study that says cigarette smoking i9s safe. Your comment is actually meaningless, except it sounds like a good but ignorant comeback. Have you considered a career in politics? Signature1) Eat Till SATISFIED, Not STUFFED... Atkins repeated 9 times in the book 2) Exercise: It's Non-Negotiable..... Chapter 22 title, Atkins book 3) Don't Diet Without Supplemental Nutrients... Chapter 23 title, Atkins book 4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or Other) ::: Recently a major USA study on humans found aspartame to be quite ::: safe, except for the identified class of people with a specific ::: disorder of amino acid metabolism. :: :: Many cigarette smokers can live to a ripe old age. Many Splenda users can live to a ripe old age. > ::: Recently a major USA study on humans found aspartame to be quite > ::: safe, except for the identified class of people with a specific [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Many Splenda users can live to a ripe old age. It hasn't been used long enough to determine that. >>::: Recently a major USA study on humans found aspartame to be quite >>::: safe, except for the identified class of people with a specific [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > It hasn't been used long enough to determine that. Over 20 years isn't long enough? Vicki > > :: I > > :: would not be completely dismissive of reports that some people may > > :: have reactions to certain artificial sweetners. Some people do have > > :: different reactions to all kinds of foods, allergies to them, etc. > > :: So, I think it's quite possible that a small percentage of people > > :: could have a problem with Sucralose. The percentage thing is the important part in my view. > > I understand that people do have issues with certain foods and substances. > > However, is that a good reason to issue a warning? If you view one specific sweetener as safe, yes. > "Made from sugar" but but what they DON'T say is that three of the molecules > are turned into chlorine. Immaterial hysteria mongering. > But if it's sweet and on the market, it must be good and safe. That's the deal. No artificial sweetener is actually healthy and each one has people with reactions against it. You may be only the second or third person I recall with a reaction against sucralose since it came out, but you aren't the first. Compared to the common complaints that are heard about reactions against aspartame, sucralose has a very low rate of complaints. But very low isn't zero. None of the marketed artificial sweeteners has ever had a zero rate of reactions. It is always a trade-off - Is it a problem for you in specific, is it less of a problem than real sugar? Every person should know there is *some* chance of reaction to any one AS, so the first time they use it they should note their reaction. Have a bad reaction, try other ones. Does this mean AS are all eeevill? Nah. Specific ones are to specific people. On the other hand, view AS as amagic replacement for real sugar and you're not as likely to taper off your sweet tooth and I feel that risks falling off plan in the long term. View it as a crutch to use with limited use (whatever you mean by limited) then I think there's promise to view AS as a tool not as a replacement. :: P.T. wrote: ::: Roger Zoul wrote: [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] :: limited) then I think there's promise to view AS as a tool not :: as a replacement. Bottom line: don't eat a junk-food diet high in sweet-tasting foods (even if no sugar), 'cause you'll likely overeat. > That's the deal. No artificial sweetener is actually healthy and each > one has people with reactions against it. You may be only the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > reactions against aspartame, sucralose has a very low rate of > complaints. Thanks for your reply, Doug. Check out this site, people are now complaining as much as they did about aspartame: http://www.splendasickness.blogspot.com/ ,> "Made from sugar" but but what they DON'T say is that three of the molecules > are turned into chlorine. But if it's sweet and on the market, it must be > good and safe. Heck, I've probably swallowed more chlorine that you have simply by being a lifelong swimmer. And now, the local pool is being cleaned with----salt water! Yikes! chlorine in the water! All swimmers must be at risk! Pat in TX > ,> "Made from sugar" but but what they DON'T say is that three of the > molecules [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > a lifelong swimmer. And now, the local pool is being cleaned with----salt > water! Yikes! chlorine in the water! All swimmers must be at risk! If you were sick and found out it was the chlorine, would you be smart enough to stop? >>,> "Made from sugar" but but what they DON'T say is that three of the >>molecules [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > If you were sick and found out it was the chlorine, would you be smart > enough to stop? You THINK that it was the Chlorine (sucralose), but you didn't PROVE IT. The fact that you were sick and got rid of the sucralose and got better doesn't mean you were ill from something else, and with time the illness simply stopped because the body tends to heal itself. You are CONVINCED, but you sound ignorant of the method of objective proof.... but excel at subjective "proof". Signature1) Eat Till SATISFIED, Not STUFFED... Atkins repeated 9 times in the book 2) Exercise: It's Non-Negotiable..... Chapter 22 title, Atkins book 3) Don't Diet Without Supplemental Nutrients... Chapter 23 title, Atkins book 4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or Other) > What's missing here from PT is the context. We don't know what diet > this person is following, for how long, etc. So, it's impossible to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Also of interest is that PT is now looking at Stevia. This is probably > the sweetner that has has the least, if any, safety studies done. There *are* the study findings of reduced sperm production, reduced seminal vesicle weight and increased testicular cell proliferation in male rodents and reduced numbers of and birth weight of pups in females outcome associated with stevia, but I'm sure that's nothing. Why? It's natural, just like butterflies and sunshine and arsenic! Uh, wait... Carmen > There *are* the study findings of reduced sperm production, reduced > seminal vesicle weight and increased testicular cell proliferation in > male rodents and reduced numbers of and birth weight of pups in females > outcome associated with stevia, but I'm sure that's nothing. Why? > It's natural, just like butterflies and sunshine and arsenic! Uh, > wait... Where? I just started growing it in the garden this year so... > > There *are* the study findings of reduced sperm production, reduced > > seminal vesicle weight and increased testicular cell proliferation in [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I just started growing it in the garden this year so... You're growing the herb. These studies were done on the refined stevioside which is a far larger dose due to concentration. Stevia isn't evil, any more than any of the other sweeteners are. There are potential risks with anything you take in, and with lots of things "The dose makes the poison". I like salt on my food, but too much at once will kill you. ;-) Carmen > You're growing the herb. These studies were done on the refined > stevioside which is a far larger dose due to concentration. Ummm... no, it's not. The amount of stevioside required to add a certain sweetness is going to be similar regardless of whether you use a purified version or the herb. I buy the purified powder. It is too strong to use as the tiniest amount you can sprinkle out of the shaker sweetens like a cup of sugar. Given that I have never cared for *that* much sweet in my coffee, I dilute it 1:25 with water, then use a drop or two per cup of coffee. My dilution pretty much comes out equivalent to Sweetzfree (which is sucralose diluted in water sans the fillers). If someone *likes* sweetner in the amounts that they'd be eating the equivalent of cups upon cups of sugar, they'd probably get pretty sick with sucralose too. Or aspartame. Or sugar, for that matter. > Stevia > isn't evil, any more than any of the other sweeteners are. There are > potential risks with anything you take in, and with lots of things "The > dose makes the poison". I like salt on my food, but too much at once > will kill you. ;-) Dose is not dependent on concentration though. A microgram of stevioside diluted in water versus a microgram of it "diluted" with plant parts is still a microgram of the stuff. I've never heard of studies indicating dangers with stevia, which is why I asked. I am growing the herb, in hopes of having a nice source of sweetner in my garden, at least for some uses (I can't imagine licorice flavor added to coffee being particularly palatable). I also use aspartame, sucralose, and other sweeteners (some smuggled back from trips to Canada!) I don't have any problems with any of them, though I dislike saccharin and do disapprove of sugar alcohols somewhat. jackiepa...@gmail.com wrote: > > You're growing the herb. These studies were done on the refined > > stevioside which is a far larger dose due to concentration. > > Ummm... no, it's not. The amount of stevioside required to add a > certain sweetness is going to be similar regardless of whether you use > a purified version or the herb. See below > I buy the purified powder. It is too strong to use as the tiniest > amount you can sprinkle out of the shaker sweetens like a cup of sugar. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > stevioside diluted in water versus a microgram of it "diluted" with > plant parts is still a microgram of the stuff. You've left out an important part of the equation in your comparison - the rest of the plant material. In the refined product the superfluous material has been removed, thus eliminating any of the unpleasant (thereby self dose limiting) side tastes. It is in this light that the dose difference becomes important. > I've never heard of studies indicating dangers with stevia, which is > why I asked. I am growing the herb, in hopes of having a nice source > of sweetner in my garden, at least for some uses (I can't imagine > licorice flavor added to coffee being particularly palatable). If you aren't having problems I wouldn't worry about it. If you're interested in reading studies both pro and con I'd suggest Medline. It does have some potential benefits for glycemic control. Tea perhaps? See if it's used in Oriental medicine of any sort. > I also use aspartame, sucralose, and other sweeteners (some smuggled > back from trips to Canada!) I don't have any problems with any of > them, though I dislike saccharin and do disapprove of sugar alcohols > somewhat. I use aspartame almost exclusively. I don't perceive Splenda as very sweet at all, so it isn't much use, and saccharine and cyclamates (which taste like "saccharine light" to me) both have an unpleasant aftertaste for me. I don't bother with sugar free products too often, except for SF Pep-o-Mint LifeSavers, so sugar alcohols are limited to sorbitol mostly. The only one I know is just completely intolerable for me is lactitol. Anything with that particular SA in it will result in miserable pain. YMMV, as with almost everything. :-) Carmen > I use aspartame almost exclusively. I don't perceive Splenda as very > sweet at all, so it isn't much use, and saccharine and cyclamates [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > for me is lactitol. Anything with that particular SA in it will result > in miserable pain. YMMV, as with almost everything. :-) I mostly use aspartame also, as I mostly use sweetener in my coffee and it's the cheapest (given that I don't like saccharin). Other stuff is used mostly for cooking, where aspartame doesn't hold up. The purified, then diluted stevia, works as well as the Sweetzfree in cooking. The actual herb is going to take a lot of experimenting with though - there's no recipes out there. The few recipes based on stevia I can find are based on the purified extract. So stuff like trying to make strawberry jam is gonna be experimental and just see how it works... > Also of interest is that PT is now looking at Stevia. This is probably > the sweetner that has has the least, if any, safety studies done. That's right, I am RESEARCHING it. And if you have any info on Stevia, please let me know. P.T. >>Also of interest is that PT is now looking at Stevia. This is probably >>the sweetner that has has the least, if any, safety studies done. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > P.T. The right time to call "WOLF" about a potential danger is AFTER you have done the RESEARCH. Not before. WOLF, WOLF, WOLF....... Signature1) Eat Till SATISFIED, Not STUFFED... Atkins repeated 9 times in the book 2) Exercise: It's Non-Negotiable..... Chapter 22 title, Atkins book 3) Don't Diet Without Supplemental Nutrients... Chapter 23 title, Atkins book 4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or Other) > The right time to call "WOLF" about a potential danger is AFTER you have > done the RESEARCH. Not before. > > WOLF, WOLF, WOLF....... Hmmmm.... didn't they say the same thing to Dr. Atkins? ::: The right time to call "WOLF" about a potential danger is AFTER you ::: have done the RESEARCH. Not before. ::: ::: WOLF, WOLF, WOLF....... :: :: Hmmmm.... didn't they say the same thing to Dr. Atkins? Are you comparing yourself to Dr. Atkins? :) > ::: The right time to call "WOLF" about a potential danger is AFTER you > ::: have done the RESEARCH. Not before. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > :) No, I am much cuter :) >>The right time to call "WOLF" about a potential danger is AFTER you have >>done the RESEARCH. Not before. >> >>WOLF, WOLF, WOLF....... > > Hmmmm.... didn't they say the same thing to Dr. Atkins? Yes, but Atkins based his diet on the work of Benoit, F.L., et.al. in "Annals of Internal Medicine" 63, 1965, pp604-612.. This, and other European work in the 1950's and 1960's was the basis for the low carb diet as Atkins initially promoted it. Yes, his detractors ignored these things, but as you are demonstrating here, detractors are good at selective quoting and point raising. Signature1) Eat Till SATISFIED, Not STUFFED... Atkins repeated 9 times in the book 2) Exercise: It's Non-Negotiable..... Chapter 22 title, Atkins book 3) Don't Diet Without Supplemental Nutrients... Chapter 23 title, Atkins book 4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or Other) PT posted this link to a blog dedicated to the evils of Splenda. Everyone should go take a look at it and see how irrational these whackos are. http://www.splendasickness.blogspot.com/ I just took a quick glance which was enough. Look at the "abdominal pain and cramping" section. There a whole bunch of people bitching about abdominal symptoms after eating LC jelly beans, LC fudge pops, LC ice cream etc. So these people attribute these effects to the Splenda. Yet, we all know this is a common side effect of sugar alcohols. In fact, most of these products have a warning right on the label that over consumption can cause these abdominal symptoms. Most of us have experienced it from time to time. Yet, in their ignorance, these people choose to blame the Splenda. You can only imagine how thoroughly someone who gives credence to this crap would try to correctly determine if there was any real association with there symptoms and Splenda. > PT posted this link to a blog dedicated to the evils of Splenda. > Everyone should go take a look at it and see how irrational these [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > about abdominal symptoms after eating LC jelly beans, LC fudge pops, LC > ice cream etc. Oh come on!! Everyone I know that has tried these products have had EXPLOSIVE diarrhea or worse!! So these people attribute these effects to the > Splenda. Yet, we all know this is a common side effect of sugar > alcohols. In fact, most of these products have a warning right on the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > crap would try to correctly determine if there was any real association > with there symptoms and Splenda. > > PT posted this link to a blog dedicated to the evils of Splenda. > > Everyone should go take a look at it and see how irrational these [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Oh come on!! Everyone I know that has tried these products have had > EXPLOSIVE diarrhea or worse!! See, there goes the last bit of your credibility, not that you had much left anyway. Lot of us on here have had some symptoms, of some degree, somtime, from some sugar alcohols. But you claim that everyone that you know has EXPLOSIVE diarrhea, or worse, whatever that might mean. A clearly alarmist generalization and exaggeration that is not to be believed. If these products were that bad, they wouldn't be able to continue to sell them, as no one would buy them. Or do all your acquaintances constantly go around with EXPLOSIVE diarrhea? And what does this have to do with the fact that abdominal symptoms are being attributed on that BS website you provided to the Sucralose? Are you trying to tell us that is the cause, not SA's? A > So these people attribute these effects to the > > Splenda. Yet, we all know this is a common side effect of sugar [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > crap would try to correctly determine if there was any real association > > with there symptoms and Splenda. > Also of interest is that PT is now looking at Stevia. This is probably > the sweetner that has has the least, if any, safety studies done. This is silly. Stevia is not an artifical sweetner, so no one does studies at all. Safety studies are required for food additives, not foods themselves. Stevia is an herb and has been used as a food for thousands of years. That doesn't make it "safe" per se, it simply makes it something not poatentable that no one has the desire to spend millions of dollars getting approved, since it's a food already. > > Also of interest is that PT is now looking at Stevia. This is probably > > the sweetner that has has the least, if any, safety studies done. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > poatentable that no one has the desire to spend millions of dollars > getting approved, since it's a food already. That was exactly my point and why I said Stevia has had the least studies done. A few small studies actually have been done. From what I can see from a quick internet search, it looks like it's history of use only goes back hundreds of years in very limited use by indians in Paraguay. It's only in the last century that it has been distibuted to a wider market, though I would still say it's very small compared to other sweetners. Yet, the artificial sweetners have been put through and continue to put through extensive safety testing. That's why I think it's ironic that PT is now considering Stevia, for which there is far less safety info.. > That was exactly my point and why I said Stevia has had the least > studies done. A few small studies actually have been done. From what [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > why I think it's ironic that PT is now considering Stevia, for which > there is far less safety info.. This still makes no sense to me. You're calling stevia a sweetener, when it's a food. I mean, yeah, it's a "sweetner" in the same sense that sugar, honey, molasses and sorghum are, all of which have less safety studies than artifical sweeteners too. I sampled some in the garden today, but it's not sweet yet. The peppermint, spearmint and applemint are all tasting like themselves, but not the stevia quite yet. Having only ever had the purified, powdered extract, I don't know how I will like stevia - heard it has a very strong licorice-overtone that a lot of folks don't like. It's an experiment. :: Having only ever had the purified, powdered extract, I don't know :: how I will like stevia - heard it has a very strong :: licorice-overtone that a lot of folks don't like. It's an :: experiment. Yeah, I don't like it at all. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.