Page 1 of 1


Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 9:22 am
by SquirmingSusan
I recently read something about Splenda that has me wanting to never use that stuff again. It was discovered inadvertently when scientists were trying to invent a new pesticide, and it has a lot of chemical similarities to DDT. Yum.

Here's a link to a reputable site, run by a doctor/nurse team to help women with mid-life hormonal issues:

Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 5:02 pm
by KBear
I avoid all artificial ingredients as best I can. We don't need artificial sweetners and we don't need that much sugar either. I put fruit in my cereal (dried or fresh) to make it sweeter. With the abundance of fresh fruit availble at every grocery store in the civilized world who needs sugar on everything?

Of course I stray on occasion, I like to add a tablespoon of brown sugar to oatmeal every once in while, and I can't live without ice cream on at least a monthly basis. But I am trying.

Some newer studies are showing that artificial sweetners do not help us to lose weight. Our bodies do not recognize these substances as food so we are not satisfied, and continue to eat more, or we end up binging later because we are starving.

For more info on this topic check out the book "You on a Diet". The writing style is a little too "pop culture" for my taste but the information is accurate and well researched.

Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 5:51 pm
by mackjergens
I became diabetic a little over a year ago, I had gained over 50 lbs and was a total sweet eater. Would drink a 2 liter bottle or coke every day, LOVED sweets. Of course I had to give ALL that up and have gone to usings the artifical sweetners, and I have lost over 30 lbs. So I am not sure the research is right. At least not for me. As for fresh fruits I love those and do eat quite abit, but again as diabetic you must be very careful of those sugars also. The best diet is watching what you eat, cutting down on carbs, eating smaller portions, such as each serving should be about the size or you fist. 3 meals per day and 2 snacks a day. Just watching what I eat and the amount has been very simple in my process of losing weight and controling my diabeties.

Just check everything you pick up, most all will have sugar in it.. Even right down to milk. I was totally shocked when I started checking for sugars in food products. Its amazing and totally understandable why our society is becoming more obese each year, and that of our children also.

I never eat anything but 100% wheat bread, If I go out to eat, and have a baked potato I never eat the dinner rolls or bread served with the meal. IF you really start paying attention to what you put into your bodies, you will be shocked at just how much sugar you do consume in one meal or ever a snack.

I know of people who have used artifical sweetners for years and have had no affects from doing so. Of course as we all know everyone is different. But as a diabetic you sometimes just have to use them to prevent over doing the sugar.

Plus I have NOT noticed any difference in my RLS since cutting out almost ALL sugar in my diet. Again each person is different.

Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 8:29 pm
by SquirmingSusan
I'm another one who can say definitively that cutting out sugars, and replacing them with artificial sweeteners, has helped me lose weight. I had to lose weight before my gastric bypass surgery, and all I did was cut the sugar and dropped something like 30 pounds. And since the surgery my body doesn't handle sugar properly, because of the way food is routed. I also have to be really careful with fruit, and fruit juice is way off limits.

I do use a fair amount of Splenda, which is why I was so appalled by this information. :shock: In a lot of ways, though, I've really lost my sweet tooth. And if things aren't whole grain they seem disgusting to me. I had a fish sandwich from McDonald's yesterday that processed bun was so nasty. And then I had horrible nausea for the next hour.

I really do agree with Kathy on the eating right, though, just for general well-being. OTOH, the one in the family who always eats right and exercises, my dh, was the one who got leukemia, so I'm not convinced you can avoid that many health problems by good eating habits. Something's gonna get you in the end.

I love the Dr. Oz books. But then I like to be entertained when I'm getting my information.

Splenda is horrible

Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 2:24 am
by Michelle
I am so mad at the companies pushing these artificial sweeteners. They are CRAP. It's better to eat sugar than eating those chemicals. They actually mess up your thymus gland to where you get sick more often. It eats away at it from what I've read. This lowers your immune system. It's not healthy to eat a lot of sugar either so what I do is I use Stevia sweetener at my health food store and it isn't a chemical and it has a zero effect on blood sugar, it breaks down into the digestion system (intenstines) it has added fiber to it as well. It's good in teas or plain yogurt. I do splurge at times though and eat sweets without artificial sweeteners.

Re: Splenda

Posted: Thu May 28, 2009 3:21 am
by HHeffner
I was diagnosed with RLS in 2003, but have been blessed with few symptoms. I recently experienced much discomfort below the knees for a few weeks. The only thing I could think of that changed during that time was my use of the new bulk granulated "Cup for Cup" Splenda. I had used the small packet version for many months without noticing any bad effects. When I switched to the bulk variety my consumption increased significantly. I stopped all use of Splenda a couple weeks ago and the lower leg pain has not recurred. This is information purely anecdotal, and the correlation could be purely coincidental, however I am posting the information in case others have a similar experience and a pattern develops.

Posted: Thu May 28, 2009 8:27 pm
by Aiken
People need to learn not to believe everything they read, even when it's written by a medical professional. Keep in mind how often we talk about just how stupid and ignorant some medical professionals are.

Let me give you a couple of examples that raised red flags about the authors for me:

While some industry experts claim the molecule is similar to table salt or sugar, other independent researchers say it has more in common with pesticides. That’s because the bonds holding the carbon and chlorine atoms together are more characteristic of a chlorocarbon than a salt — and most pesticides are chlorocarbons.

This is a logical fallacy. The fact that A is similar to B, and that most C are B, does not at all mean that A is a C.

The fallacy, or error in logic, here, is assuming that because most C are B, that also most B are C, which is not a safe assumption at all.

Let me substitute non-medical buzzwords to make it more obvious how flawed this assumption is: It's like saying that sloths are similar to other creatures who also have hair on their body, and most humans have hair on their body. The presumed assumption is therefore that sloths might be humans, which is clearly a poor assumption. Now, if you could say instead that most creatures with hair on their bodies were humans, it might be a little safer to guess that another creature with hair on its body might be a human, but even so, it's a stretch.

The premise offered next is that just because something contains chlorine doesn’t guarantee that it’s toxic. And that is also true, but you and your family may prefer not to serve as test subjects for the latest post-market artificial sweetener experiment — however “unique.”

The very notion that containing chlorine is somehow innately scary is laughable. Half of table salt is chlorine. Its molecule is NaCl, Na being sodium and Cl being chlorine.

Using the phrase, "doesn't guarantee it's toxic" implies that it's nevertheless nearly guaranteed, but without making a direct assertion that can easily be challenged and dismissed. This is a common tactic in propaganda, and makes me question the authors' agenda.


If you read it in an article, folks, you can't trust it. A white paper in a journal, with peer review... eh, maybe you can trust it, but not something like this.

(By the way, I have no idea if Splenda is safe. I just know this article seems pretty dubious.)

Posted: Fri May 29, 2009 1:19 am
by SquirmingSusan
And then there's the danger of quoting something out of context, and presenting one of the sides of the argument that the authors are writing about, as if the authors believe that side of the argument, and not the other side of the argument that is also presented in the same paragraph. :wink:

That said, please don't assume that I agree with the authors of the article. I posted it with faith that people who read it might be interested in the arguments on both sides.

I rarely believe what those people write anyway; they think that RLS can be cured by a balanced diet and the right supplements. But I do like passing along information that I think is interesting.

Posted: Fri May 29, 2009 2:32 am
by Aiken
Oh, I didn't mean you, Susan. I just want people in general to question things they're told more than they do, even when those things come from authority figures.

PS: I think I did quote the entire paragraph...?

Posted: Fri May 29, 2009 5:28 am
by SquirmingSusan
It's OK, it just seemed like you were taking issue with the "other authorities who say that it has more in common with pesticides, because of the chlorine, yada yada." But that IS true I think - Splenda was discovered in the process of developing pesticides.

The authorities who say that Splenda is like sugar because it's made from sugar are really misleading us. Once you chlorinate a hydrocarbon, it changes it a lot. And a chlorinated hydrocarbon is a whole lot different than a chlorine atom in a salt molecule...

I just thought the whole article was interesting, probably because I was a chemist for a pharmaceutical company for a couple years, and that was one of my majors in college.

Whether or not Splenda is safe is a real question; the FDA has often approved stuff and later pulled them from the market. (I think I've taken 8 different recalled medications in my life.) For my diabetic daughter, it's certainly safer than eating a ton of sugar...

OTOH, "natural sweeteners" are also chemicals. And many of them haven't been tested for safety at all. Like I always say, poison ivy is all natural. :wink:

I don't even know what my point is anymore. I should get some sleep!