Someone please help me understand why aspartame or Splenda is somehow bad for me?
Replies
-
4legsRbetterthan2 wrote: »If you care about natural vs. artificial, there are natural sweeteners too, including stevia (Truvia), monkfruit, xylitol, and erythritol. But Splenda or any other approved sweetener is fine in moderation too. I use different sweeteners depending on what I'm sweetening - some seem to work better for particular foods than others. I agree with the "fearmongering" post, btw. Just adding this because sometimes people think every non-sugar sweetener is artificial.
Fwiw, things aren't necessarily safe because they're natural, or dangerous because they're artificial.
Actually, this kinda made me think, apologies this is a bit left field, but still a little related. Everyones issue with aspertame seems to be centered around the fact that high quantities gave rodents brain tumors. No one ever seems concerned about human consumption of xylitol which is highly toxic to dogs. Not that I think they should necessarily, but if you are going to worry about one why not the other.
I dont really know what it is about aspartame that makes me avoid it.. I have no scientific explanation, it's just a gut feel.1 -
I love Splenda and don't have any issues with it or notice any aftertaste.1
-
Christine_72 wrote: »4legsRbetterthan2 wrote: »If you care about natural vs. artificial, there are natural sweeteners too, including stevia (Truvia), monkfruit, xylitol, and erythritol. But Splenda or any other approved sweetener is fine in moderation too. I use different sweeteners depending on what I'm sweetening - some seem to work better for particular foods than others. I agree with the "fearmongering" post, btw. Just adding this because sometimes people think every non-sugar sweetener is artificial.
Fwiw, things aren't necessarily safe because they're natural, or dangerous because they're artificial.
Actually, this kinda made me think, apologies this is a bit left field, but still a little related. Everyones issue with aspertame seems to be centered around the fact that high quantities gave rodents brain tumors. No one ever seems concerned about human consumption of xylitol which is highly toxic to dogs. Not that I think they should necessarily, but if you are going to worry about one why not the other.
I dont really know what it is about aspartame that makes me avoid it.. I have no scientific explanation, it's just a gut feel.
I can get that, and I think you should do what you feel comefortable with. I didnt mean that directed at you, I actually hadn't seen your first comment till you replied to this, but they did go hand in hand a little too well, so just wanted to make sure you didnt think I was was making a jab at your specifically.0 -
Sometimes aspartame gives me headaches, sometimes it doesn't. Drink what you like, eat what you like. My clean eating friends scoff that my diet includes processed food. Because *gasp* [insert chemicals! etc] - they would never eat such things!
It's annoying that people feel like they can comment on what you consume. I hate when people are commenting on what I'm eating aside from that smells/looks good. I feel like the age old adage "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all" should apply to the way we look and things we consume. If you want to get a little deeper - sugar free gum, pretty much every person chews it at some point in their life. Guess what sweetens it? Artificial sweeteners or sugar alcohols. The horror!
0 -
4legsRbetterthan2 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »4legsRbetterthan2 wrote: »If you care about natural vs. artificial, there are natural sweeteners too, including stevia (Truvia), monkfruit, xylitol, and erythritol. But Splenda or any other approved sweetener is fine in moderation too. I use different sweeteners depending on what I'm sweetening - some seem to work better for particular foods than others. I agree with the "fearmongering" post, btw. Just adding this because sometimes people think every non-sugar sweetener is artificial.
Fwiw, things aren't necessarily safe because they're natural, or dangerous because they're artificial.
Actually, this kinda made me think, apologies this is a bit left field, but still a little related. Everyones issue with aspertame seems to be centered around the fact that high quantities gave rodents brain tumors. No one ever seems concerned about human consumption of xylitol which is highly toxic to dogs. Not that I think they should necessarily, but if you are going to worry about one why not the other.
I dont really know what it is about aspartame that makes me avoid it.. I have no scientific explanation, it's just a gut feel.
I can get that, and I think you should do what you feel comefortable with. I didnt mean that directed at you, I actually hadn't seen your first comment till you replied to this, but they did go hand in hand a little too well, so just wanted to make sure you didnt think I was was making a jab at your specifically.
No not at all, all good
You're question made perfect sense.
0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »4legsRbetterthan2 wrote: »If you care about natural vs. artificial, there are natural sweeteners too, including stevia (Truvia), monkfruit, xylitol, and erythritol. But Splenda or any other approved sweetener is fine in moderation too. I use different sweeteners depending on what I'm sweetening - some seem to work better for particular foods than others. I agree with the "fearmongering" post, btw. Just adding this because sometimes people think every non-sugar sweetener is artificial.
Fwiw, things aren't necessarily safe because they're natural, or dangerous because they're artificial.
Actually, this kinda made me think, apologies this is a bit left field, but still a little related. Everyones issue with aspertame seems to be centered around the fact that high quantities gave rodents brain tumors. No one ever seems concerned about human consumption of xylitol which is highly toxic to dogs. Not that I think they should necessarily, but if you are going to worry about one why not the other.
I dont really know what it is about aspartame that makes me avoid it.. I have no scientific explanation, it's just a gut feel.
I'm avoiding for the above reason (gut feel). Just because things are unknown about something does not mean it is ok or not ok. From Wikipedia article "mercury use was thought to prolong life, heal fractures, and maintain generally good health, although it is now known that exposure to mercury vapor leads to serious adverse health effects". Who knows what we will know about aspartame, or anything else in 10 years or 100 years.3 -
Years and years ago there were studies done on artificial sweeteners and increase risk of CA. I don't think there was ever an outcome proving this. Maybe that's why there is a stigma of "unhealthiness" towards them.
So many theories. I say stick to what works for you and brush off what anyone else has to say about it.1 -
It's because of physiological differences between dogs and humans. Xylitol isn't toxic to humans, and there might even be a few health benefits (dental health, fewer ear infections). Though too much can cause, um, bathroom and gas issues. Some other common foods are the same way, like chocoolate (fine for humans, toxic to dogs and cats).4legsRbetterthan2 wrote: »If you care about natural vs. artificial, there are natural sweeteners too, including stevia (Truvia), monkfruit, xylitol, and erythritol. But Splenda or any other approved sweetener is fine in moderation too. I use different sweeteners depending on what I'm sweetening - some seem to work better for particular foods than others. I agree with the "fearmongering" post, btw. Just adding this because sometimes people think every non-sugar sweetener is artificial.
Fwiw, things aren't necessarily safe because they're natural, or dangerous because they're artificial.
Actually, this kinda made me think, apologies this is a bit left field, but still a little related. Everyones issue with aspertame seems to be centered around the fact that high quantities gave rodents brain tumors. No one ever seems concerned about human consumption of xylitol which is highly toxic to dogs. Not that I think they should necessarily, but if you are going to worry about one why not the other.
3 -
Artificial sweeteners are the MOST STUDIED additives on the market. There are decades of study on it.walkingforward wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »4legsRbetterthan2 wrote: »If you care about natural vs. artificial, there are natural sweeteners too, including stevia (Truvia), monkfruit, xylitol, and erythritol. But Splenda or any other approved sweetener is fine in moderation too. I use different sweeteners depending on what I'm sweetening - some seem to work better for particular foods than others. I agree with the "fearmongering" post, btw. Just adding this because sometimes people think every non-sugar sweetener is artificial.
Fwiw, things aren't necessarily safe because they're natural, or dangerous because they're artificial.
Actually, this kinda made me think, apologies this is a bit left field, but still a little related. Everyones issue with aspertame seems to be centered around the fact that high quantities gave rodents brain tumors. No one ever seems concerned about human consumption of xylitol which is highly toxic to dogs. Not that I think they should necessarily, but if you are going to worry about one why not the other.
I dont really know what it is about aspartame that makes me avoid it.. I have no scientific explanation, it's just a gut feel.
I'm avoiding for the above reason (gut feel). Just because things are unknown about something does not mean it is ok or not ok. From Wikipedia article "mercury use was thought to prolong life, heal fractures, and maintain generally good health, although it is now known that exposure to mercury vapor leads to serious adverse health effects". Who knows what we will know about aspartame, or anything else in 10 years or 100 years.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
7 -
walkingforward wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »4legsRbetterthan2 wrote: »If you care about natural vs. artificial, there are natural sweeteners too, including stevia (Truvia), monkfruit, xylitol, and erythritol. But Splenda or any other approved sweetener is fine in moderation too. I use different sweeteners depending on what I'm sweetening - some seem to work better for particular foods than others. I agree with the "fearmongering" post, btw. Just adding this because sometimes people think every non-sugar sweetener is artificial.
Fwiw, things aren't necessarily safe because they're natural, or dangerous because they're artificial.
Actually, this kinda made me think, apologies this is a bit left field, but still a little related. Everyones issue with aspertame seems to be centered around the fact that high quantities gave rodents brain tumors. No one ever seems concerned about human consumption of xylitol which is highly toxic to dogs. Not that I think they should necessarily, but if you are going to worry about one why not the other.
I dont really know what it is about aspartame that makes me avoid it.. I have no scientific explanation, it's just a gut feel.
I'm avoiding for the above reason (gut feel). Just because things are unknown about something does not mean it is ok or not ok. From Wikipedia article "mercury use was thought to prolong life, heal fractures, and maintain generally good health, although it is now known that exposure to mercury vapor leads to serious adverse health effects". Who knows what we will know about aspartame, or anything else in 10 years or 100 years.
Not a valid comparison. Aspartame has gone through decades of scientific study; mercury had not been before it was used.2 -
Underlying bias that if anything is enjoyable, it should not be enjoyed. Denying yourself enjoyment is an exercise of discipline, and therefore somehow (illogically) virtuous. And virtue shall be rewarded (illogically) with health. Honestly it's at the real heart of why so many people malign sugar itself. (i.e., unless you have an underlying condition, sugar is not actually bad for you -- TOO MUCH SUGAR is bad for you. Just like food is not bad for you, but too much food is. Sex is not bad for you but irresponsibly risky sex ... risky).
Many people's brains just get fried by nuance. Moderation is too hard to think about. Everything is vice or virtue.
And then you get the thinking that if sugar is enjoyable and bad for you, then artificial sweeteners are somehow "cheating" by letting you have the enjoyment w/o many of the potential health downsides, but CHEATERS if you're enjoying the sweetness, you don't deserve to be healthy so BAD.5 -
The reality in life, is usually people close to you don't really want to acknowledge that they want you to somehow secretly "fail" because your success is a reflection on how undisciplined they are to achieve the same.Underlying bias that if anything is enjoyable, it should not be enjoyed. Denying yourself enjoyment is an exercise of discipline, and therefore somehow (illogically) virtuous. And virtue shall be rewarded (illogically) with health. Honestly it's at the real heart of why so many people malign sugar itself. (i.e., unless you have an underlying condition, sugar is not actually bad for you -- TOO MUCH SUGAR is bad for you. Just like food is not bad for you, but too much food is. Sex is not bad for you but irresponsibly risky sex ... risky).
Many people's brains just get fried by nuance. Moderation is too hard to think about. Everything is vice or virtue.
And then you get the thinking that if sugar is enjoyable and bad for you, then artificial sweeteners are somehow "cheating" by letting you have the enjoyment w/o many of the potential health downsides, but CHEATERS if you're enjoying the sweetness, you don't deserve to be healthy so BAD.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
2 -
It's because of physiological differences between dogs and humans. Xylitol isn't toxic to humans, and there might even be a few health benefits (dental health, fewer ear infections). Though too much can cause, um, bathroom and gas issues. Some other common foods are the same way, like chocoolate (fine for humans, toxic to dogs and cats).4legsRbetterthan2 wrote: »If you care about natural vs. artificial, there are natural sweeteners too, including stevia (Truvia), monkfruit, xylitol, and erythritol. But Splenda or any other approved sweetener is fine in moderation too. I use different sweeteners depending on what I'm sweetening - some seem to work better for particular foods than others. I agree with the "fearmongering" post, btw. Just adding this because sometimes people think every non-sugar sweetener is artificial.
Fwiw, things aren't necessarily safe because they're natural, or dangerous because they're artificial.
Actually, this kinda made me think, apologies this is a bit left field, but still a little related. Everyones issue with aspertame seems to be centered around the fact that high quantities gave rodents brain tumors. No one ever seems concerned about human consumption of xylitol which is highly toxic to dogs. Not that I think they should necessarily, but if you are going to worry about one why not the other.
This is precisely why i started having xylitol, my dentist recommended it to me.2 -
@Dudebro200 said...
I have consumed salty chlorine since I was born. I havent had any issues with that.
I'm not saying people shouldn't...but salt occurs in nature...splenda doesn't. That matters to some people Splenda makes me quite ill, so I don't use it. Truvia doesn't bother me, so I use it sometimes. I've had the opportunity to purchase naturally occuring truvia (stevia leaf) in my community. I like that, though I know the processed product has other ingrediants. Aspartame doesn't bother me but I'm trying to reduce it in my diet, for many reasons.
I really just think we should know what our foods/additives are made from...carmine, anyone?0 -
She's got it right. Most of the studies done on Aspartame and Splenda were performed on rats with unrealistic doses that no human in their right mind would consume. There is a reason why rat studies are not the most reliable for nutritional information because the gene expression and metabolism of rats is far different than the metabolism of humans in several ways, but conveniently when someone shows that such and such a thing causes something to happen to rats, they omit that part:https://examine.com/nutrition/is-diet-soda-bad-for-you/
If diet soda doesn't rest well with you, then don't drink it, but don't think you have to take it out because some clean eating guru told you so.4 -
dudebro200 wrote: »For almost 16 years, I have been drinking diet soda (prefer water however), and putting Splenda in my oatmeal, my coffee and anything that uses sugar in cooking.
I get a lot frowns from my whole-foods elitists friends who proceed to dump many grams of sugar into their lattes and teas.
If I drink regular Coke or coffee with sugar syrup, it tastes super sweet to me and I almost can't handle it.
How can someone judge me when they are consuming 200 units of empty calories and I consume 0? I am in better shape and look younger, but I am the unhealthy one because I consume aspartame?
I don't think either you or your friends are 'the unhealthy one'
Nothing wrong with aspartame in sensible amounts but nothing wrong with sugar in sensible amounts either
1 -
4legsRbetterthan2 wrote: »
Actually, this kinda made me think, apologies this is a bit left field, but still a little related. Everyones issue with aspertame seems to be centered around the fact that high quantities gave rodents brain tumors. No one ever seems concerned about human consumption of xylitol which is highly toxic to dogs. Not that I think they should necessarily, but if you are going to worry about one why not the other.
Yeah but chocolate, grapes, and onions are toxic to dogs too. And I am not giving up any of that.
Dogs have the issue with processing those foods in their livers or kidneys (can't remember which). It's a sudden thing due to toxicity, not a long term effect like cancer/tumors.
My opinion is against artificial sweeteners except for very rare occasions.2 -
I wrote a term paper on aspartame. I read through at least 30 scholarly published research studies from a bunch of sources, including meta analyses of the studies. I was expecting to find overwhelming evidence that aspartame was carcinogenic. What I found was almost all of the rat studies saying aspartame is harmful was conducted by the SAME team . The other couple dozen teams had no substantial correlation between aspartame and cancer. I saw a lot of studies proving placebo effect due to expectations. Some people really can't process it due to a specific condition, but most people aren't effected by it. By the time I had finished the paper, I decided it wasn't worth it to go out of my way to avoid the stuff. I'm not saying is great for you, but I haven't been convinced that it's bad yet either.7
-
Why waste time on artificial sweeteners when real sugar is probably better for you? At least then you can argue it's natural lol0
-
It's got more calories. If someone is trying to lose weight, there are lower-calorie alternatives. Some of them are even natural ones. It's also bad for teeth.MaddMaestro wrote: »Why waste time on artificial sweeteners when real sugar is probably better for you? At least then you can argue it's natural lol
3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions