All About Artificial Sweeteners

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?

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.

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!).

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?

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.

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

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

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

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

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!

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!

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

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

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

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