Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Equal or Splenda....
- Thread starter PinK233
- Start date
Complete Muscle
New member
I don't think either of these would cause any sort of an insulin spike:
Sucralose is the only non-caloric sweetener made from sugar. Sucralose is derived from sugar through a multi-step patented manufacturing process that selectively substitutes three atoms of chlorine for three hydroxyl groups on the sugar molecule. This change produces a sweetener that has no calories, yet is 600 times sweeter than sucrose. I allegedly passes through the digestive system unchanged.
Aspartame is made from two amino acids (protein components) -- L-phenylalanine and L-aspartic acid. Aspartame is a low-calorie sweetener which is approximately 200 times sweeter than sucrose. I believe it is broken down by the body into its amino acid components.
Sucralose is the only non-caloric sweetener made from sugar. Sucralose is derived from sugar through a multi-step patented manufacturing process that selectively substitutes three atoms of chlorine for three hydroxyl groups on the sugar molecule. This change produces a sweetener that has no calories, yet is 600 times sweeter than sucrose. I allegedly passes through the digestive system unchanged.
Aspartame is made from two amino acids (protein components) -- L-phenylalanine and L-aspartic acid. Aspartame is a low-calorie sweetener which is approximately 200 times sweeter than sucrose. I believe it is broken down by the body into its amino acid components.
I can only speak from personal experience, but *I* do get insulin spikes from aspartame. I'm hypoglycemic, so I can really tell when I'm getting an insulin flood. It doesn't happen EVERY time, but often enough so that I avoid it. I've spoken with other low-carb dieters that can't tolerate the stuff, or that it stalls their weight loss.
Aspartame is also said to convert to some really nasty chemicals when heated to body temp. It is rumored to cause brain damage. Also, doesn't keep it's sweet taste when you cook it.
I use saccharin - recently proven to NOT cause cancer as previously assumed for cold drinks/food and coffee, as it is EXTREMELY cheap.
I use splenda for cooking/baking or for when sugar-taste is REALLY important (like on grapefruit) and the saccharin bitterness would be too much.
Splenda is cheapest and lowest carb in the bulk box. I get the box for less than $3.50, usually.
Fawn
Aspartame is also said to convert to some really nasty chemicals when heated to body temp. It is rumored to cause brain damage. Also, doesn't keep it's sweet taste when you cook it.
I use saccharin - recently proven to NOT cause cancer as previously assumed for cold drinks/food and coffee, as it is EXTREMELY cheap.
I use splenda for cooking/baking or for when sugar-taste is REALLY important (like on grapefruit) and the saccharin bitterness would be too much.
Splenda is cheapest and lowest carb in the bulk box. I get the box for less than $3.50, usually.
Fawn
aspartame sucks. aspartame is a carcinogen... it's been proven, and if you do a search on google for it and you'll find many accounts of negative side effects of this substance. yeah, it's cheap, which is why diet drinks use it so much.
as for splenda... i haven't found any negative accounts in using this as a sugar substitute... but studies of long term usage are yet to be done. i'd trust it over aspartame, though... that's for damn sure.
stick with splenda... when you're 60 you'll be thanking yourself.
--Hess
as for splenda... i haven't found any negative accounts in using this as a sugar substitute... but studies of long term usage are yet to be done. i'd trust it over aspartame, though... that's for damn sure.
stick with splenda... when you're 60 you'll be thanking yourself.
--Hess
moosecles said:can someone tell me what equal is, im assuming its some sort of powder, maybe a flavoured powder to add taste to shakes? someone shed some light for me
equal, splenda, sweet n' low, are all very low calorie sugar substitutes. The most common form of them is powder.
ND
naturally anabolic
New member
aspartame in large doses is a neurotoxin, aspartame should not be consumed by children or pregnant folk, i wouldn't use it anyway simply for that reason
Long-Term Damage
----------------
It appears to cause slow, silent damage in those unfortunate enough
to not have immediate reactions and a reason to avoid it. It may take
one year, five years, 10 years, or 40 years, but it seems to cause
some reversible and some irreversible changes in health over long-term
use.
Brain Cancer
------------
Aspartame caused large brain tumors in life-long animal experiments
at a dose that could be considered within the "Acceptable Daily
Intake" limit after adjusting for differences in metabolism of
aspartame's breakdown products between humans and rodents.
Not long after the FDA Commissioner went to work as a consultant
for the PR firm of the aspartame manufacturer, FDA Investigator
and Toxicologist, Dr. Adrian Gross stated the following:
In view of all these indications that the cancer-
causing potential of aspartame is a matter that
had been established way beyond any reasonable
doubt, one can ask: What is the reason for the
apparent refusal by the FDA to invoke for this
food additive the so-called Delaney Amendment to
the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act? Is it not clear
beyond any shadow of a doubt that aspartame had
caused brain tumors or brain cancer in animals,
and is this not sufficient to satisfy the
provisions of that particular section of the law?
Given that this is so (and I cannot see any kind
of tenable argument opposing the view that
aspartame causes cancer) how would the FDA justify
its position that it views a certain amount of
aspartame (50 mg/mg body-weight) as constituting
an ADI (Allowable Daily Intake) or "safe" level of
it? Is that position in effect not equivalent to
setting a "tolerance" for this food additive and
thus a violation of that law? And if the FDA
itself elects to violate the law, who is left to
protect the health of the public?
Uterine Polyps
--------------
Pre-approval experiments showed that an aspartame breakdown product
caused uterine polyps in experimental animals.
Not long after the FDA Commissioner went to work as a consultant for
the PR firm of the aspartame manufacturer, FDA Investigator, Dr.
Jacqueline Verrett stated the following:
"This (DKP) is the famous study with the uterine
polyps, and it is also the study in which there
were changes in serum cholesterol, significant
changes over the dose range.
"Now, we still are not sure exactly how much of
DKP each group of animals or any individual animal
got; they may not have gotten what would be
calculated on the basis of daily consumption had
the diet been homogeneous.
"The fact is, in spite of that, there were
significant increases--and I think everybody
agrees with that--of uterine polyps and also
changes in blood cholesterol.
"When that was then taken into consideration, they
said, oh, well, obviously, they must have gotten
the diet, because we have these changes. But then
they disregarded the changes as being significant-
-you know, uterine polyps were not pre-
carcinogenic. Well, I can rustle up 15 million
women by this afternoon who will disagree with
that."
Other Hazards
-------------
The following is a selection of other hazards from long-term use of
aspartame. Once these effects are seen clinically, the internal
damage has often been done. Removing aspartame from the diet may
clear up some of the symptoms but the damage from the breakdown
products such as methanol may be permanent.
Seizures and convulsions, arthritic and joint pain, chronic fatigue,
depression, memory loss, vision damage and loss, tingling in the
extremities, slurring of speech, irritability, severe anxiety
attacks, menstrual problems, blood sugar control problems, symptoms
similar to multiple sclerosis, worsening of fibromyalgia, parkinson's
tremors, etc., etc.
Long-Term Damage
----------------
It appears to cause slow, silent damage in those unfortunate enough
to not have immediate reactions and a reason to avoid it. It may take
one year, five years, 10 years, or 40 years, but it seems to cause
some reversible and some irreversible changes in health over long-term
use.
Brain Cancer
------------
Aspartame caused large brain tumors in life-long animal experiments
at a dose that could be considered within the "Acceptable Daily
Intake" limit after adjusting for differences in metabolism of
aspartame's breakdown products between humans and rodents.
Not long after the FDA Commissioner went to work as a consultant
for the PR firm of the aspartame manufacturer, FDA Investigator
and Toxicologist, Dr. Adrian Gross stated the following:
In view of all these indications that the cancer-
causing potential of aspartame is a matter that
had been established way beyond any reasonable
doubt, one can ask: What is the reason for the
apparent refusal by the FDA to invoke for this
food additive the so-called Delaney Amendment to
the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act? Is it not clear
beyond any shadow of a doubt that aspartame had
caused brain tumors or brain cancer in animals,
and is this not sufficient to satisfy the
provisions of that particular section of the law?
Given that this is so (and I cannot see any kind
of tenable argument opposing the view that
aspartame causes cancer) how would the FDA justify
its position that it views a certain amount of
aspartame (50 mg/mg body-weight) as constituting
an ADI (Allowable Daily Intake) or "safe" level of
it? Is that position in effect not equivalent to
setting a "tolerance" for this food additive and
thus a violation of that law? And if the FDA
itself elects to violate the law, who is left to
protect the health of the public?
Uterine Polyps
--------------
Pre-approval experiments showed that an aspartame breakdown product
caused uterine polyps in experimental animals.
Not long after the FDA Commissioner went to work as a consultant for
the PR firm of the aspartame manufacturer, FDA Investigator, Dr.
Jacqueline Verrett stated the following:
"This (DKP) is the famous study with the uterine
polyps, and it is also the study in which there
were changes in serum cholesterol, significant
changes over the dose range.
"Now, we still are not sure exactly how much of
DKP each group of animals or any individual animal
got; they may not have gotten what would be
calculated on the basis of daily consumption had
the diet been homogeneous.
"The fact is, in spite of that, there were
significant increases--and I think everybody
agrees with that--of uterine polyps and also
changes in blood cholesterol.
"When that was then taken into consideration, they
said, oh, well, obviously, they must have gotten
the diet, because we have these changes. But then
they disregarded the changes as being significant-
-you know, uterine polyps were not pre-
carcinogenic. Well, I can rustle up 15 million
women by this afternoon who will disagree with
that."
Other Hazards
-------------
The following is a selection of other hazards from long-term use of
aspartame. Once these effects are seen clinically, the internal
damage has often been done. Removing aspartame from the diet may
clear up some of the symptoms but the damage from the breakdown
products such as methanol may be permanent.
Seizures and convulsions, arthritic and joint pain, chronic fatigue,
depression, memory loss, vision damage and loss, tingling in the
extremities, slurring of speech, irritability, severe anxiety
attacks, menstrual problems, blood sugar control problems, symptoms
similar to multiple sclerosis, worsening of fibromyalgia, parkinson's
tremors, etc., etc.
Last edited:
doggmeister
New member
call me a non-believer , but I'd rather stick to it (equal) than have the real thing (i.e sugar in it's natural form)..other wise if you're going to go around study every study made on everything you eat we're going to be on this thread for a long time..
just type caffiene in google and see how many benefits versus toxic effects it has..now how are you going to choose?
just type caffiene in google and see how many benefits versus toxic effects it has..now how are you going to choose?
LOL MR BMJ, I was just thinking the same thing. But I worked out a long time ago that the vast majority of readers on this board are not interested in peer reviewed science. I think it's actually human nature to PREFER the muck-raking, speculative and sensational journalism found on the news/internet than to seek out the truth. It certainly makes for better gossip and discussion.
I'm using saccharin now. It's very cheap and tastes superb. I think ALL of the sugar susbstitutes are vastly superior to your health than eating an equivalent amount of ordinary sugar. This includes sugar alcohols, which are my absolute fave.
I'm using saccharin now. It's very cheap and tastes superb. I think ALL of the sugar susbstitutes are vastly superior to your health than eating an equivalent amount of ordinary sugar. This includes sugar alcohols, which are my absolute fave.
LOL! More aspartame bullshit. Who do you think started the whole anti-aspartame movement? That's right, the sugar industry. Aspartame has never been shown to be carcinogenic.
http://www.snopes2.com/toxins/aspartam.htm
Wake up sheeple! Enjoy that Diet Coke!
http://www.snopes2.com/toxins/aspartam.htm
Wake up sheeple! Enjoy that Diet Coke!
Don't know much about no PUBMED, but I did read an article online written by a preacher, who sayed that studies have shown that rats given Nutrasweet enemas, while using cell-phones, and eat trans-fatty acid laden foods get brain cancer.
Thats proof enough for me to not use Nutrasweet and continue with my carton-a-day habit.
Thats proof enough for me to not use Nutrasweet and continue with my carton-a-day habit.
