Thoughts on Truvia and aspartame?

Karabobarra
Karabobarra Posts: 782 Member
in Food and Nutrition
http://www.naturalnews.com/034320_aspartame_sweetener_side_effects.html

just read an article that puts truvia and purevia in the same unhealthy chemically processed boat as aspartame....it said Stevia (preferably from brazil) in it's unprocessed raw form with no chemicals added is considered ok with none of the side effects of the others.
«134

Replies

  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    I'm waiting patiently for someone to explain the process technology of getting the chemical that we think is sweet out of the green leaves beloved of the PR people. Armed with that info I could form an opinion. Or is the "unprocessed raw form" a pile of leaves ?

    Truvia uses erythritol as a carrier for the stevia extract, this can't be called "natural" on advertising in the UK.
  • snazzyjazzy21
    snazzyjazzy21 Posts: 1,298 Member
    Argh.

    There is nothing wrong with aspartame. Stevia has had dramatically fewer studies on it than aspartame, so the jury is still out on it IMO. Go aspartame! :drinker:
  • EvgeniZyntx
    EvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,208 Member
    Boy, is that link full of awful. :noway:
  • martyqueen52
    martyqueen52 Posts: 1,120 Member
    I use Splenda all day everyday. The "tests" you read about are preformed on animals usually using INSANE amounts over a LONG *kitten* period of time, which would not effect us at all.
  • ashandstuff
    ashandstuff Posts: 442 Member
    Boy, is that link full of awful. :noway:

    ^this.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • 1stday13
    1stday13 Posts: 433 Member
    Boy, is that link full of awful. :noway:
    +1
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    I just eat real sugar…I guess that makes me satan???
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • Samstan101
    Samstan101 Posts: 699 Member
    I just eat real sugar…I guess that makes me satan???
    From reading these forums I'd say it makes you and addict :wink:
  • bethlaf
    bethlaf Posts: 954 Member
    I just eat real sugar…I guess that makes me satan???

    possibly....

    or one of the lucky few who has no issues with it...
  • tigersword
    tigersword Posts: 8,059 Member
    tigerpalm.jpg
  • Snow3y
    Snow3y Posts: 1,412 Member
    http://www.naturalnews.com/034320_aspartame_sweetener_side_effects.html

    just read an article that puts truvia and purevia in the same unhealthy chemically processed boat as aspartame....it said Stevia (preferably from brazil) in it's unprocessed raw form with no chemicals added is considered ok with none of the side effects of the others.

    The FDA have studied Aspartame endlessly, and are still today. Many competitors to Coca-Cola tried to bring down their name by saying how bad aspartame is, little do people know there is even aspartame in everyone's daily bread. Go figure.
  • gieshagirl
    gieshagirl Posts: 102 Member
    my best friend is type 2 diabetic and her dietitian told her that stevia is the only sweetner that does not effect blood sugar at all. it is the only one that they endorse....if that helps. all the others raise glucose levels (not as much as sugar ) but they do raise it.:smile:
  • melsinct
    melsinct Posts: 3,512 Member
    little do people know there is even aspartame in everyone's daily bread. Go figure.

    Yuck, not my bread.

    Barring medical issues, my opinion is if you eat SO MUCH sweetened stuff where you need a zero calorie sweetener to help you meet your calorie goal, then the problem isn't the sweetener. The problem is your eating too much crap with boatloads of sugar. Of course, most people don't want to hear that and would rather search high and low for some miracle sweetener that allows them to get their sugar fix without paying the caloric penalty.
  • EvgeniZyntx
    EvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,208 Member
    my best friend is type 2 diabetic and her dietitian told her that stevia is the only sweetner that does not effect blood sugar at all. it is the only one that they endorse....if that helps. all the others raise glucose levels (not as much as sugar ) but they do raise it.:smile:

    Uh, no not quite.

    What sucralose does (and perhaps other artificial sweetners) it affect the glycemic response to carbohydrates ingested after or together. But alone, none of the the sweetners affect glucose levels because they have no glucose.
    Diabetes Care. 2013 Sep;36(9):2530-5. doi: 10.2337/dc12-2221. Epub 2013 Apr 30.
    Sucralose affects glycemic and hormonal responses to an oral glucose load.
    Pepino MY1, Tiemann CD, Patterson BW, Wice BM, Klein S.
    Author information 1Center for Human Nutrition, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA. ypepino@dom.wustl.edu
    Abstract
    OBJECTIVE: Nonnutritive sweeteners (NNS), such as sucralose, have been reported to have metabolic effects in animal models. However, the relevance of these findings to human subjects is not clear. We evaluated the acute effects of sucralose ingestion on the metabolic response to an oral glucose load in obese subjects.

    RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Seventeen obese subjects (BMI 42.3 ± 1.6 kg/m(2)) who did not use NNS and were insulin sensitive (based on a homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance score ≤ 2.6) underwent a 5-h modified oral glucose tolerance test on two separate occasions preceded by consuming either sucralose (experimental condition) or water (control condition) 10 min before the glucose load in a randomized crossover design. Indices of β-cell function, insulin sensitivity (SI), and insulin clearance rates were estimated by using minimal models of glucose, insulin, and C-peptide kinetics.

    RESULTS: Compared with the control condition, sucralose ingestion caused 1) a greater incremental increase in peak plasma glucose concentrations (4.2 ± 0.2 vs. 4.8 ± 0.3 mmol/L; P = 0.03), 2) a 20 ± 8% greater incremental increase in insulin area under the curve (AUC) (P < 0.03), 3) a 22 ± 7% greater peak insulin secretion rate (P < 0.02), 4) a 7 ± 4% decrease in insulin clearance (P = 0.04), and 5) a 23 ± 20% decrease in SI (P = 0.01). There were no significant differences between conditions in active glucagon-like peptide 1, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide, glucagon incremental AUC, or indices of the sensitivity of the β-cell response to glucose.

    CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate that sucralose affects the glycemic and insulin responses to an oral glucose load in obese people who do not normally consume NNS.

    In other research stevai was shown to have less of a glycemic response on load but a gylcemic response was still seen (because there was a glucose load).

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2900484/
  • SideSteel
    SideSteel Posts: 11,068 Member
    little do people know there is even aspartame in everyone's daily bread. Go figure.

    Yuck, not my bread.

    Barring medical issues, my opinion is if you eat SO MUCH sweetened stuff where you need a zero calorie sweetener to help you meet your calorie goal, then the problem isn't the sweetener. The problem is your eating too much crap with boatloads of sugar. Of course, most people don't want to hear that and would rather search high and low for some miracle sweetener that allows them to get their sugar fix without paying the caloric penalty.

    What would you say to the individual who is drinking a couple of diet sodas per day because it helps him or her kick their regular soda habit, resulting in a reduction in energy intake?
  • SideSteel
    SideSteel Posts: 11,068 Member
    Regarding the OP:

    I remain unconvinced that there are dangers to aspartame provided that we're talking about relatively "sane" consumption levels. PKU aside.
  • randomtai
    randomtai Posts: 9,003 Member
    little do people know there is even aspartame in everyone's daily bread. Go figure.

    Yuck, not my bread.

    Barring medical issues, my opinion is if you eat SO MUCH sweetened stuff where you need a zero calorie sweetener to help you meet your calorie goal, then the problem isn't the sweetener. The problem is your eating too much crap with boatloads of sugar. Of course, most people don't want to hear that and would rather search high and low for some miracle sweetener that allows them to get their sugar fix without paying the caloric penalty.

    Or you may just prefer the zero calorie sweetener. *shrug* :ohwell:
  • Calliope610
    Calliope610 Posts: 3,783 Member
    I just eat real sugar…I guess that makes me satan???
    From reading these forums I'd say it makes you and addict :wink:

    Yep
  • rml_16
    rml_16 Posts: 16,414 Member
    My only thought is they both taste horrible so I avoid them because I avoid things that taste horrible.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • happycauseIride
    happycauseIride Posts: 536 Member
    Bumping so i can read when I have more time. Thanks for sharing.
  • Oscarinmiami
    Oscarinmiami Posts: 326 Member
    stay away from aspartame, it causes tumors in the liver and gives headaches. Don't know enough about truvia
  • tigersword
    tigersword Posts: 8,059 Member
    stay away from aspartame, it causes tumors in the liver and gives headaches. Don't know enough about truvia
    No, it really doesn't.
  • sweetblackberry1
    sweetblackberry1 Posts: 29 Member
    for me stevia taste horrendous i think i prefer the turbinated sugar
  • rml_16
    rml_16 Posts: 16,414 Member
    stay away from aspartame, it causes tumors in the liver and gives headaches. Don't know enough about truvia
    No, it really doesn't.
    He's partially correct. It is a known and recognized migraine trigger. But not everyone who gets migraines has the same trigger, so it won't cause them in everyone. However, if it is a trigger for someone, that person should avoid it.

    Migraines suck.
  • WendyTerry420
    WendyTerry420 Posts: 13,274 Member
    http://www.naturalnews.com/034320_aspartame_sweetener_side_effects.html

    just read an article that puts truvia and purevia in the same unhealthy chemically processed boat as aspartame....it said Stevia (preferably from brazil) in it's unprocessed raw form with no chemicals added is considered ok with none of the side effects of the others.

    Truvia is my favorite. Aspartame is okay. Sucralose (Splenda) gives me headaches. So any time it says "no sugar," I read the label.
  • littlelaura
    littlelaura Posts: 1,028 Member
    Ive used stevia for the last 5 years it seems okay.
    I cant use splenda and have to avoid most products with it in it. Gave me chemical burns on my throat and tongue after using it just a week.
  • WendyTerry420
    WendyTerry420 Posts: 13,274 Member
    I'm waiting patiently for someone to explain the process technology of getting the chemical that we think is sweet out of the green leaves beloved of the PR people. Armed with that info I could form an opinion. Or is the "unprocessed raw form" a pile of leaves ?

    Truvia uses erythritol as a carrier for the stevia extract, this can't be called "natural" on advertising in the UK.

    How is erythritol unnatural? Isn't that sugar alcohol?




    Edit: Ok, I looked it up, and I was right.

    http://altmedicine.about.com/od/herbsupplementguide/a/erythritol.htm

Categories