Is Splenda good or no?

No thanks! If I need to sweeten something up, I use Stevia and in extreme moderation!

I have yet to see any evidence that would suggest that artificial sweeteners are harmful when consumed at "reasonable" dose. That being said, if they allow someone to make something taste sweet, and save calories doing so, then go for it.

Carmen, just curious what degree YOU have.

Pre med: that's bio and chem majors, plus my minor is psych. Then I had mini strokes that made med school ill advised. My background is solid, but persistent short term memory loss would make it look as if I'd used some much better student's transcripts to apply. From an ethical standpoint I'm no longer that person.

Artificial sweeteners taste like toenails.

Don't use sugar, studies show that it causes Diabetes. Natural does not mean good for you either. Notice all the poison foods listed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_poisonous_plants

Moderation, moderation, moderation

Stevia has gotten much better from a taste stance recently. It's more expensive than most other low cal sweeteners, but it has the crystalline look of sugar along with the sugar mouthfeel but without the cooling effect of xylitol.

Don't use sugar, studies show that it causes Diabetes.

srs?

Totes srs.

I hope we don't have to preface everything we say on here with our credentials now. :laugh: Some of you peeps earlier in the thread have spent lots and lots of time in post-secondary education! :drinker:

Here goes my $0.02:

Personally I don't "do" artificial sweetners of any kind. The few that I have tried have given me near-instant headaches and a horrible metallic taste on the sides of my tongue (weird, I know, but really icky). To me they taste awful and I'd much rather give up the culprit/calories than switch it out for something nasty tasting (ie: no soda if I can't do fully leaded).

In a way, I wish I could do them as I'm sure I could squeeze more goodies into my calorie allotment, but I just can't. I also have personal concerns about their safety, just based on my observations (ie: my reactions to them). Are they good for you? There isn't enough evidence, apparently, to really say definitively one way or the other (or at least I haven't seen it). Thus, I'm going to err on the side of caution and avoid them for me and my family.

Sometimes personal experience trumps peer reviewed literature, I guess. :laugh:

I just started using Splenda not too sure if that's a good Idea or if I should keep on with my Raw sugar anyone?

Personally, I think it's gross. But each to her own! :flowerforyou:

I use Splenda (sucralose) for my coffee, because it's lower in calories than the real stuff. Tastes as good, in my opinion. I think raw sugar is more natural, so if you can afford the extra calories I would pick that.

Scientists are not too sure about the long term effects of sucralose on the human body, so to be honest I am considering giving it up too. It's also made with aspartame... Recent studies in Europe show that aspartame use can result in an accumulation of formaldehyde in the brain, which can damage your central nervous system and immune system and cause genetic trauma. The FDA admits this is true, but claims the amount is low enough in most that it shouldn’t raise concern. Scary.

Some people have pretty bad side effects from that substance. Nothing too serious, but migraines, cramps, mood swings... Never experienced any of those, but it's worth being concerned about.

Here is a very honest article about this: http://www.womentowomen.com/healthyweight/splenda.aspx

Could you please provide the link or further details of the studies in Europe (they are not cited in the link you provided).

I have experienced people having reactions to peanuts, but as I do not, I eat them. (I would use shellfish as an example also but as I am a vegetarian I actually do not eat it).

Here is a source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy

Look up the "Ramazzini studies" section.

Umm....are you referring to the section that includes this:

The Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center of the European Ramazzini Foundation of Oncology and Environmental Sciences has released several studies which claim that aspartame can increase several malignancies in rats, concluding that aspartame is a potential carcinogen at normal dietary doses. Although thirteen occupational safety and health experts signed an open letter from CSPI to the FDA expressing that the 2007 ERF study merited a reevaluation of aspartame's safety in humans, these studies have been widely criticized and discounted by the FDA and other food safety agencies:

After reviewing the foundation's claims, the EFSA and the FDA discounted the study results and found no reason to revise their previously established acceptable daily intake levels for aspartame. Reported flaws were numerous and included, but were not limited to, the following: comparing cancer rates of older aspartame-consuming rats to younger control rats; unspecified composition of the "Corticella" diet and method of adding aspartame, leading to possible nutritional deficiencies; unspecified aspartame storage conditions; lack of animal randomization; overcrowding and a high incidence of possibly carcinogenic infections; and the U.S. National Toxicology Program's finding that the ERF had misdiagnosed hyperplasias as malignancies.[8] Reviews by the FDA and EFSA were hampered by the refusal of the Ramazzini Foundation to release all data and pathology slides, but from the materials received, the FDA and EFSA found that the data did not support the researcher's published conclusions. Evaluation of this research by Health Canada and the British government's Committee on Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment likewise found methodological problems with the research and did not recommend any further reconsideration of the recommended intake of aspartame in their respective countries.

A review of the literature concurred with these evaluations, finding many possible flaws in the study's design and conclusions. These conclusions are also contradicted by other carcinogenicity studies which found no significant danger. This review therefore concluded this research did not constitute credible evidence for the carcinogenicity of aspartame. Another review criticized the Ramazzini Foundation for relying on "science by press conference" with its release of results through the media before being published in a proper peer-reviewed journal, thus helping fuel the controversy and publicity about the study in the media.

Another carcinogenicity study in rodents published by this foundation in 2010 was evaluated by the EFSA and was found to have multiple significant design flaws and could not be interpreted. The EFSA therefore concluded this study did not provide enough evidence to reconsider previous evaluation of aspartame safety.

Umm....are you referring to the section that includes this:

The Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center of the European Ramazzini Foundation of Oncology and Environmental Sciences has released several studies which claim that aspartame can increase several malignancies in rats, concluding that aspartame is a potential carcinogen at normal dietary doses. Although thirteen occupational safety and health experts signed an open letter from CSPI to the FDA expressing that the 2007 ERF study merited a reevaluation of aspartame's safety in humans, these studies have been widely criticized and discounted by the FDA and other food safety agencies:

After reviewing the foundation's claims, the EFSA and the FDA discounted the study results and found no reason to revise their previously established acceptable daily intake levels for aspartame. Reported flaws were numerous and included, but were not limited to, the following: comparing cancer rates of older aspartame-consuming rats to younger control rats; unspecified composition of the "Corticella" diet and method of adding aspartame, leading to possible nutritional deficiencies; unspecified aspartame storage conditions; lack of animal randomization; overcrowding and a high incidence of possibly carcinogenic infections; and the U.S. National Toxicology Program's finding that the ERF had misdiagnosed hyperplasias as malignancies.[8] Reviews by the FDA and EFSA were hampered by the refusal of the Ramazzini Foundation to release all data and pathology slides, but from the materials received, the FDA and EFSA found that the data did not support the researcher's published conclusions. Evaluation of this research by Health Canada and the British government's Committee on Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment likewise found methodological problems with the research and did not recommend any further reconsideration of the recommended intake of aspartame in their respective countries.

A review of the literature concurred with these evaluations, finding many possible flaws in the study's design and conclusions. These conclusions are also contradicted by other carcinogenicity studies which found no significant danger. This review therefore concluded this research did not constitute credible evidence for the carcinogenicity of aspartame. Another review criticized the Ramazzini Foundation for relying on "science by press conference" with its release of results through the media before being published in a proper peer-reviewed journal, thus helping fuel the controversy and publicity about the study in the media.

Another carcinogenicity study in rodents published by this foundation in 2010 was evaluated by the EFSA and was found to have multiple significant design flaws and could not be interpreted. The EFSA therefore concluded this study did not provide enough evidence to reconsider previous evaluation of aspartame safety.

The article's name is "Aspartame controversy". Of course there are a lot of disagreements... Studies are going to contradict each other, and each side will find a way to prove their points. It is very easy to find a bunch of studies that prove one thing, and another bunch the opposite. Especially with a subject like this, as we do not know the long term effects of sucralose. And that is not debatable, we simply do not know about them. This is what's a little bit scary. It does not stop me from putting my packet of Splenda in my coffee in the morning, but I do wonder. All I am saying is that it is probably preferable to consume something natural than some kind of chemical.

Everything is okay in moderation.

With that being said, I had to take a pretty rigorous 6 week college course on nutrition with a whole unit dedicated to fake sugars. (Culinary arts major. Nutrition is part of my career)

Sucralose (Splenda) is the only sugar substitute that is actually derived from sugar. It doesn't have any real problems unless you are an individual with PKU.. I'm surprised there's this much controversy surrounding sucralose and not aspartame, which has been in and out of the FDA to rule as healthy over 25 times.. And every time, it comes back as safe to eat.
Some people report gas, or diarrhea, but this usually comes from the sugar substitutes xylitol and sugar alcohols. Read the ingredients; more and more products that I see nowadays put a mix of substitutes in their ingredients. Instead of just aspartame, there is aspartame AND acesulfame-K, xylitol, etc.

You're fine. To be quite honest, the only thing that stops me from them is the taste. So gross.

Regular sugar or nothing for me. It's 15 calories a teaspoon. I'll give up other stuff to have real sugar in my coffee.

Umm....are you referring to the section that includes this:

The Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center of the European Ramazzini Foundation of Oncology and Environmental Sciences has released several studies which claim that aspartame can increase several malignancies in rats, concluding that aspartame is a potential carcinogen at normal dietary doses. Although thirteen occupational safety and health experts signed an open letter from CSPI to the FDA expressing that the 2007 ERF study merited a reevaluation of aspartame's safety in humans, these studies have been widely criticized and discounted by the FDA and other food safety agencies:

After reviewing the foundation's claims, the EFSA and the FDA discounted the study results and found no reason to revise their previously established acceptable daily intake levels for aspartame. Reported flaws were numerous and included, but were not limited to, the following: comparing cancer rates of older aspartame-consuming rats to younger control rats; unspecified composition of the "Corticella" diet and method of adding aspartame, leading to possible nutritional deficiencies; unspecified aspartame storage conditions; lack of animal randomization; overcrowding and a high incidence of possibly carcinogenic infections; and the U.S. National Toxicology Program's finding that the ERF had misdiagnosed hyperplasias as malignancies.[8] Reviews by the FDA and EFSA were hampered by the refusal of the Ramazzini Foundation to release all data and pathology slides, but from the materials received, the FDA and EFSA found that the data did not support the researcher's published conclusions. Evaluation of this research by Health Canada and the British government's Committee on Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment likewise found methodological problems with the research and did not recommend any further reconsideration of the recommended intake of aspartame in their respective countries.

A review of the literature concurred with these evaluations, finding many possible flaws in the study's design and conclusions. These conclusions are also contradicted by other carcinogenicity studies which found no significant danger. This review therefore concluded this research did not constitute credible evidence for the carcinogenicity of aspartame. Another review criticized the Ramazzini Foundation for relying on "science by press conference" with its release of results through the media before being published in a proper peer-reviewed journal, thus helping fuel the controversy and publicity about the study in the media.

Another carcinogenicity study in rodents published by this foundation in 2010 was evaluated by the EFSA and was found to have multiple significant design flaws and could not be interpreted. The EFSA therefore concluded this study did not provide enough evidence to reconsider previous evaluation of aspartame safety.

The article's name is "Aspartame controversy". Of course there are a lot of disagreements... Studies are going to contradict each other, and each side will find a way to prove their points. It is very easy to find a bunch of studies that prove one thing, and another bunch the opposite. Especially with a subject like this, as we do not know the long term effects of sucralose. And that is not debatable, we simply do not know about them. This is what's a little bit scary. It does not stop me from putting my packet of Splenda in my coffee in the morning, but I do wonder. All I am saying is that it is probably preferable to consume something natural than some kind of chemical.

You did not mention the "controversy" part in your post. Also, in your post you said " Recent studies in Europe show that aspartame use can result in an accumulation of formaldehyde in the brain, which can damage your central nervous system and immune system and cause genetic trauma." I did not see that in the wikipedia page you linked when asked for the source - all I saw was a discussion of flawed studies.

I am not trying to give you a hard time here, but there is so much hyperbole about artificial sweeteners, I believe that it is important not to make these statements out of context.