Equal, Sweet n Low, Artificial sweeteners

Options
cyndilie
cyndilie Posts: 52
in Food and Nutrition
What's so bad about artificial sweeteners? Seems better than using 2-3 spoons of sugar in a tea or coffee.
«13

Replies

  • Carnivor0us
    Carnivor0us Posts: 1,752 Member
    Options
    I'm inclined to agree with you.
  • snowfox1
    snowfox1 Posts: 128 Member
    Options
    I would say because sugar is natural and artificial sweeters are..well..artificial/chemicals. I would like to know what people have to say about this also. do people use sugar or artificial sweeteners and why? :)
  • Carnivor0us
    Carnivor0us Posts: 1,752 Member
    Options
    I would say because sugar is natural and artificial sweeters are..well..artificial/chemicals. I would like to know what people have to say about this also. do people use sugar or artificial sweeteners and why? :)

    In all fairness, sugar is also a chemical. :smile:
  • SueDalo
    SueDalo Posts: 3 Member
    Options
    Check out what Robert Lustig has to say about processed sugars.
    Most of them store as fat
  • cyndilie
    cyndilie Posts: 52
    Options
    Since mid-April I have not had a single soda and I am drinking as much water as I can get down, but I do love my sweet tea, so have been drinking tea with Equal. It's zero calories. Surely that's better than the alternative.
  • Fullsterkur_woman
    Fullsterkur_woman Posts: 2,712 Member
    Options
    I would say because sugar is natural and artificial sweeters are..well..artificial/chemicals. I would like to know what people have to say about this also. do people use sugar or artificial sweeteners and why? :)

    In all fairness, sugar is also a chemical. :smile:
    QFT
    We don't know what the effects of using a lot of artificial sweeteners is long-term. We know darned good and well what the effects of using a lot of sugar are long-term. I choose to use artificial sweeteners. I would not appreciate life without them, and nobody would appreciate me either! :noway:
  • shawnteahsing
    shawnteahsing Posts: 53 Member
    Options
    I wonder the same thing. I use artificial sweeteners all the time. I use the Crystal Lite water flavors (like Mio). I also drink the flavored waters a lot. I get tired of drinking plain water. I figure it's ok since there's no calories etc. in any of it.
  • kellzi89
    kellzi89 Posts: 65 Member
    Options
    I know some artificial sweeteners have a chemical linked to health issues such as cancer. I can't remember the name of the chemical though. Not all artificial sweeteners have that chemical though.
  • crandos
    crandos Posts: 377 Member
    Options
    Stevia is natural and better for u than sugar
  • kingtermite
    kingtermite Posts: 82 Member
    Options
    Stevia is natural and better for u than sugar
    +1
  • Lyadeia
    Lyadeia Posts: 4,603 Member
    Options
    What's so bad about artificial sweeteners? Seems better than using 2-3 spoons of sugar in a tea or coffee.

    Nothing is "so bad" about them unless you are allergic to them in some way or they are causing your macros to be out of whack (which would also happen with sugar anyway, if that's the case).

    There's a lot of alarmism and fear mongering going around about them, but it is not backed up as heavily as the fear mongers want you to believe.

    I'm in the best shape of my life, appearance and internally according to doctor's labs, and I have Splenda everyday. Until a large quantity of peer reviewed studies shows me definitively that it is bad for me, I'll continue using it. A couple of studies based on the idea that readers seem to believe that correlation IS causation isn't going to persuade me to do anything.
  • karenertl
    karenertl Posts: 271 Member
    Options
    I like the taste of sugar way more than I like the taste of artifical sweeteners, especially aspartame. I don't see the point in consuming something I hate the taste of. Sucralose is ok as far as taste, otherwise I try to avoid the artificial sweetners.
  • inmeinerwelt
    inmeinerwelt Posts: 3
    Options
    There have some studies been made around artificial sweetners - especially aspartame (is this nutrasweet in the US???).
    This chemical was released first with high allowed amounts in food. This has been corrected because they found that this can cause cancer in animal models.

    The problem may be, that we don't know a lot about "what will be after 30 years full of it". But thats the same for Stevia.

    So: I would use them, but not too much of them.

    And besides: if you never come away from the sweet taste, temptation will allways be with you (I knwo what I talk about, because I'm a sweet addict as well)
  • Matt_Wild
    Matt_Wild Posts: 2,673 Member
    Options
    There have some studies been made around artificial sweetners - especially aspartame (is this nutrasweet in the US???).
    This chemical was released first with high allowed amounts in food. This has been corrected because they found that this can cause cancer in animal models.

    The problem may be, that we don't know a lot about "what will be after 30 years full of it". But thats the same for Stevia.

    So: I would use them, but not too much of them.

    And besides: if you never come away from the sweet taste, temptation will allways be with you (I knwo what I talk about, because I'm a sweet addict as well)

    33 cans of diet cokes worth a day for a very very long time. I'm also not a mouse, never will be a mouse and none of my friends or family have either. I don't have the hormonal system of a mouse, nor do I have the same diet, with the same macros. Nor do I have the same body composition of a mouse, the same levels of skeletal muscle, same sized organs etc. In long and short, a mouse model is a very basic comparison, of which the amounts needed are insanely high.

    The reality is its almost impossible to consume in suggested amounts.

    What's more, you find 25x more of the two aminos it is made from in a chicken breast.

    Aspartame has been on general release for 39 years, and in development long before that including testing. Its not new.
  • cyndilie
    cyndilie Posts: 52
    Options
    There have some studies been made around artificial sweetners - especially aspartame (is this nutrasweet in the US???).
    This chemical was released first with high allowed amounts in food. This has been corrected because they found that this can cause cancer in animal models.

    The problem may be, that we don't know a lot about "what will be after 30 years full of it". But thats the same for Stevia.

    So: I would use them, but not too much of them.

    And besides: if you never come away from the sweet taste, temptation will allways be with you (I knwo what I talk about, because I'm a sweet addict as well)

    33 cans of diet cokes worth a day for a very very long time. I'm also not a mouse, never will be a mouse and none of my friends or family have either. I don't have the hormonal system of a mouse, nor do I have the same diet, with the same macros. Nor do I have the same body composition of a mouse, the same levels of skeletal muscle, same sized organs etc. In long and short, a mouse model is a very basic comparison, of which the amounts needed are insanely high.

    The reality is its almost impossible to consume in suggested amounts.

    What's more, you find 25x more of the two aminos it is made from in a chicken breast.

    Aspartame has been on general release for 39 years, and in development long before that including testing. Its not new.
  • BevBasil
    BevBasil Posts: 37 Member
    Options
    Stevia is the best one to use.....all natural, zero calories, no chemicals.
  • thisismeraw
    thisismeraw Posts: 1,264 Member
    Options
    Most of them store as fat

    Ya..... no. Totally false.
  • FredDoyle
    FredDoyle Posts: 2,273 Member
    Options
    Stevia is the best one to use.....all natural, zero calories, no chemicals.
    Stevia is ALL chemicals.
    You've committed the naturalist fallacy.
  • vingogly
    vingogly Posts: 1,785 Member
    Options
    Stevia is the best one to use.....all natural, zero calories, no chemicals.
    Stevia is ALL chemicals.
    You've committed the naturalist fallacy.

    However ... everything we eat is all chemicals. Our bodies are composed of chemicals. Stevia is a naturally occurring sweetener in the Stevia rebaudiana plant. It's extracted and purified from the plant leaves. I remember many years ago a friend reading the ingredients on some food label and sneering as he read the ingredients; I pointed out that most of the chemical names he was sneering at (like citric acid and guar gum are perfectly natural and extracted from plants.

    I can't believe there's yet another natural vs evil chemical thread starting up on these forums ... just because something is naturally occurring doesn't make it good for you, and just because something comes from a lab doesn't make it bad for you. Me, I like my sweeteners and I figure in five or ten years they'll find out all this stuff really extends our lives, so I plan on living at least 150 years. Yay, Splenda! At the very least, I'll be a well-preserved corpse.
  • WillowWindow
    WillowWindow Posts: 100 Member
    Options
    I won't eat aspartame or other artificial sweeteners any more. Their track history is terrible. The FDA approves stuff and then years later we learn it's a carcinogen. Anyway, adults can make their own decisions, but I don't agree with putting so much of that stuff on the market for children. I had to quit chewing gum because I couldn't find even one without aspartame.

    If you want to look at the preponderance of the evidence, here's a link to a list of peer-reviewed non-industry sponsored studies. You'll notice that all but one of the positive ones are by the FDA, but there are only 7 positive ones out of 92. Apparently most of the other positive studes are industry-sponsored. Can anyone say that's surprising?

    http://www.dorway.com/nonindus.html

Categories