All About Artificial Sweeteners

Kissxx

http://www.sparkpeople.com/resource/nutrition_articles.asp?id=289

What caught my attention: So how much artificial sweetener can an adult safely consume each day, according to these ADIs established by the FDA? Here's an example: To reach the ADI for aspartame (which is 50 mg/kg body weight per day), a 150-pound adult would need to consume 20 (12-ounce) cans of diet soda OR 42 (4-ounce) servings of sugar-free, diet gelatin OR 97 packets of tabletop sweetener in a single day.

I consume only 2 artificial sweetener per day that I add to coffee. I don't crave sweets the whole day and it keeps my sugar intake to a minimum. What are your thoughts on artificial sweeteners? Is it really THAT bad or it's a-okay?

jetbutterfly

Personally too much of anything is bad for you. I do not consume anywhere near that amount of splenda, so that makes me feel good. My opinion I think they are o.k. I def do not want to be on them long term just until I lose weight and then control the real deal in the future, but I guess I would have to say they are o.k. thanks for putting this up!

maryd523

I personally wouldn't touch chemical sweeteners with a ten-foot pole. Why would anyone want to put that tumor-inducing disgusting stuff in their bodies?

MamaDee2

Too much of the stuff gives me a MAJOR headache! My daughter can't touch it - not even in gum or she gets a migraine. I think people are different as to what they can tolerate. I have started using liquid stevia not bad reaction thus far.

catwrangler

I use splenda, I love splenda, I don't need too much to be happy. I don't want to live a life without sweetness and I don't want any sweetness with calories if I can help it.

I'm waaaay more likely to die of a heart attack or stroke than splenda induced cancer.

akgrl1020

I avoid it like the plague....I would rather just have the couple of calories in natural sugar. There are way too many health problems that seem to be around that weren't around before artificial sweeteners...

EpiGaiaRepens

I agree with Mary d523. I don't touch the stuff...because it causes cancer and is not safe for pregnant women or children to consume. Why would I put that in my body? In addition, I don't think it helps with "weight loss." Sure, it has no calories but it still does something funky. People who drink diet soda all day long will lose weight if all they do is switch to drinking water. I'm no doctor, but I seen this happen. So what gives? I dunno...but I wouldn't touch the stuff.

What i do touch is stevia. It's a plant that tastes sweet (like many plants, actually). When it's used a sweetener, it's an extract of something natural...like an extract of green tea would be. To me, this makes more sense. If a tea leaf tasted like sugar but had no calories, you'd use it wouldn't you? Well, that's what stevia is. There's lots of stevia products out there- my favorite is a soda line called Stevia (creative, huh?). The soda is great! However, I don't really like the powdered stevia sweetener- it has a funny aftertaste I don't care too much for.

I also aim to use unrefined sugars as much as possible. I don't know if it's got less calories but it does have more nutrients.

When it comes to sweet tooth issues, I think the best thing is to slowly ween yourself off the sugar. Use stevia instead of chemicals. The other thing I do is I cave in to my cravings, but I carefully calculate how much running I'd have to do for different options and make my choice based on how far I'm willing to run for a brownie or a peice of cheesecake (my cheesecake is totally worth a five mile run!).

LeCitron

I'm trying to wean myself off of artificial sweeteners, personally. I gave up all soda for the New Year (haven't broken that one yet, and oddly enough, I don't miss them at all). Instead, of soda I started drinking water with Crystal Light drink packets. I figured they were a bit better than sodas, but it's still a lot of false sugar. I also love tons of Sweet and Low in my tea. When a mug of my tea requires four pink packets and I'm drinking four mugs a day it gets to be a bit much.

The chemical alteration of the sweeteners scares me a bit as well. I mean, I'm part of the first generation to be raised on this stuff. How do I know what it'll do to my body later on? I'm trying to get used to Truvia and Stevia. They're not too bad and now I combine the two for my tea.

I don't think they're bad if used sparingly but they still tend to freak me out. I'll be interested to see where this thread leads. This is a question I've wanted an answer to for a while so thank you for bringing it up!

jetbutterfly

I agree with Mary d523. I don't touch the stuff...because it causes cancer and is not safe for pregnant women or children to consume. Why would I put that in my body? In addition, I don't think it helps with "weight loss." Sure, it has no calories but it still does something funky. People who drink diet soda all day long will lose weight if all they do is switch to drinking water. I'm no doctor, but I seen this happen. So what gives? I dunno...but I wouldn't touch the stuff.

What i do touch is stevia. It's a plant that tastes sweet (like many plants, actually). When it's used a sweetener, it's an extract of something natural...like an extract of green tea would be. To me, this makes more sense. If a tea leaf tasted like sugar but had no calories, you'd use it wouldn't you? Well, that's what stevia is. There's lots of stevia products out there- my favorite is a soda line called Stevia (creative, huh?). The soda is great! However, I don't really like the powdered stevia sweetener- it has a funny aftertaste I don't care too much for.

I also aim to use unrefined sugars as much as possible. I don't know if it's got less calories but it does have more nutrients.

When it comes to sweet tooth issues, I think the best thing is to slowly ween yourself off the sugar. Use stevia instead of chemicals. The other thing I do is I cave in to my cravings, but I carefully calculate how much running I'd have to do for different options and make my choice based on how far I'm willing to run for a brownie or a peice of cheesecake (my cheesecake is totally worth a five mile run!).

QUESTION: Is there proof artificial sweetners causes cancer?

Kissxx

Stevia is also part of the sweeteners discussed. As for the cancer debate, a lot of other things cause cancer. Simply being in an environment near gas stations, working in a salon, some cosmetics, hair dyes, use of cellphones, pollution, smoking and simply staying out in the sun. If the Acceptable Daily Intake (the intake a person can safely consume without causing any health risks) is 97 packets a day. I dont think 2 packets would cause any harm. I dont drink diet soda, I merely use two packets daily for my coffee. There is a discussion of different sweeteners and most if not all is excreted by the body unchanged and does not have an effect on glycemic response.

Thanks for the responses. I just want to see different responses to this topic.

maryd523

Stevia is also part of the sweeteners discussed. As for the cancer debate, a lot of other things cause cancer. Simply being in an environment near gas stations, working in a salon, some cosmetics, hair dyes, use of cellphones, pollution, smoking and simply staying out in the sun. If the Acceptable Daily Intake (the intake a person can safely consume without causing any health risks) is 97 packets a day. I dont think 2 packets would cause any harm. I dont drink diet soda, I merely use two packets daily for my coffee. There is a discussion of different sweeteners and most if not all is excreted by the body unchanged and does not have an effect on glycemic response.

Thanks for the responses. I just want to see different responses to this topic.

Yes, lots of things cause cancer. Despite that fact, I will continue to avoid as many of them as I can.

darrcn5

I have about 24 ounces of Diet Mountain Dew and a bit of Splenda on occasion. I don't think there's a thing in the world that would make me give up Diet Mountain Dew completely. It's my coffee.

jetbutterfly

Im just wondering if there is proof, I am sure that would be helpful to everyone.

ATT949

Thank you for posting that link — it's very illuminating!

Here's the money quote for me "An ADI is the amount of artificial sweetener a person can safely consume (per kilogram of body weight) on average, every day, over a lifetime without incurring any health risks. This includes a 100-fold safety factor, meaning that the ADI is 1/100th of the actual amount that is considered safe for daily consumption."

Read the second sentence once or twice.

Yes, the ADI is 1/100 of the amount an adult can consume every day for their entire life without any health risks.

Those are incredibly powerful words.

I had no idea it was so innocuous.

Another myth bites the dust!

Rae6503

I put splenda in my coffee and drink 1-2 diet sodas a day. I'm not really concerned about it.

Ssbischoff

There is some useful information on MAYO Clinics website. I find it interesting that the myth of cancer is still around after it was found incorrect years ago. The myth comes from the 70's when sugar subsitutes were given to rats. They got tumors on their bladders, so everyone thought it caused cancer. Years later, it was found that rats have a different component to their bladders that is affected by the artificial sweetners, that humans DO NOT have. MOST sugar subsitutes do not have any calories, and do not affect blood glucose. Spenda, is actually made from real sugar. I encourage anyone who has real questions about the affect to do their research, because it might surprise you.

Eirhren

Donald Rumsfeld had a hand in getting Aspartame pushed for approval by the FDA. Enough said.

Kissxx

There is some useful information on MAYO Clinics website. I find it interesting that the myth of cancer is still around after it was found incorrect years ago. The myth comes from the 70's when sugar subsitutes were given to rats. They got tumors on their bladders, so everyone thought it caused cancer. Years later, it was found that rats have a different component to their bladders that is affected by the artificial sweetners, that humans DO NOT have. MOST sugar subsitutes do not have any calories, and do not affect blood glucose. Spenda, is actually made from real sugar. I encourage anyone who has real questions about the affect to do their research, because it might surprise you.

Oohh nice info! Everything gets tested on rats first when we humans arent similar at all to them. Their symptoms just mean its a risk. Thats why they go to phase two where they get human participants to try the product.

jetbutterfly

yeah thanks I was trying to push the proof point because ppl like to run their mouths and make it look so bad and make it look like their way is the only way, so I was just trying to see if any of those ppl had proof and of course no. I really am glad you made this post though

lcarter25

I gave it up i dont drink diet drinks anymore just water

EpiGaiaRepens

yeah thanks I was trying to push the proof point because ppl like to run their mouths and make it look so bad and make it look like their way is the only way, so I was just trying to see if any of those ppl had proof and of course no. I really am glad you made this post though

Hey, I think this is a good point. In two minutes I found one website that said studies were "inconclusive" (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/artificial-sweeteners) and one that said aspartame causes cancer (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/34040.php). I have done scientific research myself (albeit of a different nature than these studies) and I can say for a fact that there are always so many variables that it is really hard to prove anything in science. The basic scientific method is to create a "null hypothesis" which assumes no affect and the study has to disprove the hypothesis for it to be considered "proven." There is an inherent tendency in favor of no effect in the scientific process. Another element is the idea of a controlled environement. You can't really completely control a study that would prove cancer being caused by only one ingredient in a human because, well, we are around stuff that causes cancer all day long. How can we prove it was the aspartame and not the cell phone, or the sunlight, or the other environmental toxins in the air? For me myself personally, if I find one study that indicates aspartame causes cancer, given the intrinsic tendency towards a null hypothesis of any scientific study, I am inclined to not risk it.

In addition, when I was pregnant, the doctors told me that I shouldn't take any artificial sweeteners because they can cause birth defects. I"m not a doctor and I never researched it, but that left a lasting impression.

All that being said, we also know that peanut butter often contains carcinogens and I"m not giving that up (http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/c/carcinogen.htm).Also, just because something is "natural" doesn't mean it's good for you (tobacco comes to mind, as do the various poisonous mushrooms).

Soooooooooooooooo.....you're right in that it hasn't been definitely proven to cause cancer across the board. But remember there was a time when scientists didn't all agree that cigarettes were bad for you either. It's a matter of what risks are you willing to take. I'll take my chances with peanut butter. I"m not going to take my chances with something that is made in a lab that hasn't been a a part of the environment that my species evolved in over thousands of years and therefore, in my thinking, is less likely to be a substance my body is designed to deal appropriately with.

Hope that helps!

EpiGaiaRepens

aslo, the study on rats that I cite is from 2005 and it wasn't injected to any rat body part, it was included in their feed. And the tumors developed in multiple organs. Just FYI.

EpiGaiaRepens

Donald Rumsfeld had a hand in getting Aspartame pushed for approval by the FDA. Enough said.

I also think this is a really good point. There is a problem in how our governmental agencies work, which is that the "specialists" who are deemed qualified to work at these agencies tend to job swap back and forth between working for the federal agency and working for the mutli-million dollar companies that produce the products which need to be approved by the FDA. I think that's an entirely new element of this whole thing....one that is really problematic. So I find myself wondering "who is approving this stuff and who do they plan on working for next year?" This was a problem with the FDA approval of GMO foods, for example.

And also when I look at the government website, I find myself wondering who decided how to present the results of the study here?

As I said, i did some scientific research that got published. It was a study on 4 different products. We did the research and the statistical analysis ranked the products in order of efficacy. Each and every company who's product we tested used our study to show that their product was the best intheir advertisements after that. They cleverly selected how to interpret and cite our study to say so, even though the study itself really said A was #1, B was #2....so I also have a hard time just reading someone's presentation of a study and their spin on it and accepting that as a legitimate presentation of the study.

Lawyers and marketing specialists can take a definitive scientific study and spin it however they want!

EpiGaiaRepens

oh geez. I know I'm really going off here but I had just one more thought- someone here said how we are the first generation to be raised on the stuff and I think that is also a really good point. sometimes the effects of something don't show up for quite some time- ie. a lifetime. A good 60 years of daily consumption. Those studies on rats are conducted in a matter of months. I'll be honest and say I don't know how much of a difference that makes if it's a rat's life time or a humans, but it's an important question and is another reason I won't risk it.

I keep thinking of those videos from the 1950's when kids' were sitting on their front lawns eating their sandwiches as the DDT sprayer machine went by and the voice over is reassuring everyone how safe DDT really is.

_GlaDOS_

I think it’s kind of interesting that when people are thin, exercise, and think they are “fit”, they start thinking they can consume whatever they want because it’s not making them fat anymore. There are many food-like substances out there that are doing short-term and long-term damage to our bodies on the inside. People who exercise and stay at a healthy body weight still get cancer, diabetes, and heart disease.

http://www.fooducate.com/blog/2010/01/03/three-reasons-to-rethink-that-diet-coke-youre-about-to-drink/

Actual science: http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/302/22/2477.full

ninerbuff

http://www.sparkpeople.com/resource/nutrition_articles.asp?id=289

What caught my attention: So how much artificial sweetener can an adult safely consume each day, according to these ADIs established by the FDA? Here's an example: To reach the ADI for aspartame (which is 50 mg/kg body weight per day), a 150-pound adult would need to consume 20 (12-ounce) cans of diet soda OR 42 (4-ounce) servings of sugar-free, diet gelatin OR 97 packets of tabletop sweetener in a single day.

I consume only 2 artificial sweetener per day that I add to coffee. I don't crave sweets the whole day and it keeps my sugar intake to a minimum. What are your thoughts on artificial sweeteners? Is it really THAT bad or it's a-okay?

They are fine IMO. We've had them since the 70's and before. We're a fat nation now because of over consumption.

candicole007

I agree with Mary d523. I don't touch the stuff...because it causes cancer and is not safe for pregnant women or children to consume. Why would I put that in my body? In addition, I don't think it helps with "weight loss." Sure, it has no calories but it still does something funky. People who drink diet soda all day long will lose weight if all they do is switch to drinking water. I'm no doctor, but I seen this happen. So what gives? I dunno...but I wouldn't touch the stuff.

Diet sodas are high in sodium, which leads to major fluid retention. Hence the weight loss just switching to water is actually just purging all that fluid out of the body with the excess salt

EpiGaiaRepens

Diet sodas are high in sodium, which leads to major fluid retention. Hence the weight loss just switching to water is actually just purging all that fluid out of the body with the excess salt

I also think that when someone is sucking down a diet soda all day instead of drinking water that just can't be good. Our bodies need water. So yeah, there could be more going on here than just the artificial sweetener.
also, the person I have in mind that I've seen this happen to didn't just lose water, she lost inches....so i go back to thinking about that theory that fat cells are sometime used to store toxins to protect the body...and that's when I go back to thinking I wouldn't want aspartame in my system. I"m not advocating for high fructose corn syrup, either! I just think old fashioned sucanat or honey and a bit of self control is better than relying on something we don't really know what it'll do over a lifetime of use.

scapez

I personally wouldn't touch chemical sweeteners with a ten-foot pole. Why would anyone want to put that tumor-inducing disgusting stuff in their bodies?

^ This

gbell4

I recently took a nutrition class in college, my teacher being a dietician involved in making a lot of the official dietary reccomendations for americans. From what I remember artificial sweeteners can cause cancer but you'd have to have a ton of it. I'm talking like 20-30 packets of sweet and low every day. I don't use the stuff myself because I think it tastes aweful but if you got a real sweet tooth that's causing your weight gain than they could be helpful. Now if you're drinking a case of diet soda every day you could be pushing it, plus a lot of the low cal juice type drinks have that stuff and I'm not sure how much. Basically thery'renot as bad as some people think.

dmbnj

Don't forget real sugar is bad for you too.