Sweetener 'linked' to leukaemias (ASPARTAME DANGERS)

Fresh doubts about the safety of an artificial sweetener have been raised by Italian scientists who have linked its use to leukaemias in rodents.

Aspartame is 200 times sweeter than sugar and is used throughout the world in low-calorie drinks and foods.

<....>

Compared with control rats given no sweetener, many of the female rats in the experiment developed lymphomas or leukaemias - the risk increasing with the dose of aspartame.

The researchers say their study raises concerns about the levels of aspartame to which humans can be exposed and, therefore, "urgent re-examination" of aspartame's safety is needed, "especially to protect children".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4683371.stm

------------
Donald Rumsfeld (yes, the one who kills people for a living) pulled in every favor to make sure aspartame got on the market, despite scientists telling him it was causing tumors, etc....

Well, here we are, folks! Drink up!

If you want to learn more about aspartame so that you can read the facts and make up your own mind, check out these threads for resources:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2995270

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3850150

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=111&topic_id=36282#36361

:P

told me how bad aspartame was.

Donald Rumsfeld should be in jail!!!

It's no surprise to me that this is dangerous. It's also no surprise to me that Rummy got this approved over scientific evidence that it was bad for our health.

of the flavored waters and crystal light lemonade I've been drinking for many years now. :scared:

So, is Splenda safe or just another potential health problem.

And sugar is poison, too, if one has family members with diabetes.

There's information on the web about it also. Everyone says that it's the same as sugar, but it's not.

I get a rash from Splenda myself. (I switched from Aspertame to it because I was worried about Apertame's health issues.) There was a long thread on DU about Splenda vs. Stevia a month or so back. Here's the link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=3471930

used to it.

even though i'd been using splenda a lot in my coffee (i like the taste and zero calories) i knew deep down that something wasn't quite right with it

This sort of rumor spreading has been written about often and it always amazes me. Ask about the stuff "on the internets" before you go telling other people that Splenda has problems.

I said that it has issues. I then related my personal experience, which is that I get a rash when I use it. I also provided a link to another discussion. I didn't tell anyone that they shouldn't use it. Also, it's not a rumor to tell what happened to me personally.

Mostly from "the internets".

No scientific data has been gathered as far as I know.

I never had any symptoms of problems with Aspertame and I stopped using it because of health concerns. Because I got a rash from Splenda, I stopped using it.

to see if they are possibly related to Aspartame - we'll see. Splenda doesn't seem to have an aftertaste though which is good as well.

I just drank a diet soda a few minutes ago.

:rofl:

for 20-something years.

I read something a few years ago about the dangers of Aspartame and it causing MS. Now guess what I've been diagnosed with? Now I can look forward to leukemia too (which my maternal grandfather also died from). How nice.

Donald Rumsfeld, rot in hell.
FSC

I remember the Senate hearings on it back in the '70s. The manufacturers rep kept repeating, "Aspartame is the most tested substance in history".
He never would say what the results of the tests were.

Under intense grilling from Sen. Howard Metzenbaum (D-OH) demanding the results of the tests, he just kept repeating "Aspartame is the most tested substance in history". Sounded like Scotty MacClellan.

I had a friend at work, who was nearly disabled with arthritis, was out of work for months, and his doctors made him give up diet soda. He made a complete recovery.

Another guy we worked with (recovered alcoholic) was drinking about 12+ cans of diet coke a day, and constantly complaining about joint pain.

there were too many problems with aspartame to approve it. Then Reagan got in, decimated the FDA, and bam! approval. I haven't touched it and never will.

Diet Coke also has phosphoric acid, which basically lifts the calcium from your bones. Another reason not to drink that crap.

Somewhat related to the abuses of getting NutraSweet approved:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050714/ap_on_go_ot/nih_ethics_lapses_2

very evil substance.

about 9 months ago, mo more diet pop, no more anything with Aspartame, we lost weight, stopped having headaches, and in general FEEL better (no we still drink da caffeine so that was not the headache issue)

This is a study with a few rats...

Other studies done, which were used to set the acceptable limit in Europe show no danger except at extremely high doses (avg 16 cans of soda a day).

The article also points out that most diet drinks use more than just aspartame to sweeten them...lowering the intake level even further

Btw, here in the fat ol' United States, 14 cans a day may be high but it's certainly not unheard of! And add to that the other crap food that contains aspartame and who-knows-what....

But, maybe you're right: We should trust our FDA to know what's best for us.

The studies are not from the FDA...they are from the British.

Anything taken at the wrong level is harmful.

BTW that 14 cans is a daily average, and assumes that the maximum allowable amount was used in each sode, which it generally isn't.

I really don't think a study based on a few rats given pure aspartame is particularly relevent.

aspartame eats babies too. I saw it on the internet.

staying away from chemicals altogether.
They're everywhere anyway. You're better off reducing your risk.

I mean, do you really TRUST any substance that is manufactured by a corporation?:shrug:

ELCH!:puke:

I don't trust positive studies.

Reputable, peer reviewed independent studies?

I don't trust sensationalistic stories reporting incomplete scientific studies. They are designed to shock, and only succeed in scaring people unecessarily.

It's the same thing with reporting on the lastest breakthrough in research on this or that disease which never seem to pan out

See post #7. It had been banned for years as unsafe in FDA studies, and other peer reviewed work. But, eventually Rummy and the lobbyists won out.

No links, but my memory is still aharp.

On any particular problem with Aspartame.

http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/


I gave up Diet Cokes when I realized that drinking a few a day for a few days would result in those heart palpitations (where you feel your heart skip a beat or something). I thought it was the caffeine but it never happened when I replaced Diet Coke with Mountain Dew.

That stuff is toxic. I get an instant headache that is so severe, it's almost crippling. Now they are putting it in gum, mints and even toothpaste and I have to read the labels of everything. It's just downright sickening.

Precious little information on any particular problem with Aspertame?

Well, you've shown yourself to be one of those who will only accept a very narrowly drawn "scientific study," with GAWD knows what kinds of requirements and constraints -- e.g., how many lab rats, or whatever.

But there's plenty of information out there about the dangers of aspartame. Will it be the kind of "scientific proof" you're probably going to demand? No, neither individuals negatively affected nor non-profits typically can afford the kinds of studies, and you can be DAMN sure Searle isn't going to divulge anything strongly negative or harmful.

But just in case you're interested, or mildly curious, here are a few links I've collected -- and please note there ARE a few M.D.s connected to these links:

Rumsfeld and Asparatame
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2257875
How Aspartame Became Legal
http://www.rense.com/general33/legal.htm
Aspartame, anti-depressants and Bush
(Highly political but has very good info otherwise)
By Jerry Mazza, Online Journal Contributing Writer
http://onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/080604Mazza/080604mazza.html

NUTRAPOISON - HOW TO CONDUCT CHEMICAL WARFARE THROUGH FOOD (PART ONE)
By Alex Constantine
http://www.wnho.net/nutrapoison.htm

Dr. Death (aka Donald RUMSFELD) named in ASPARTAME LAWSUIT
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3850150&mesg_id=3850150&page=
Link: http://www.newswithviews.com/BreakingNews/breaking25.htm
and: http://www.mercola.com/2005/jan/12/rumsfeld_aspartame.htm
(more links in OP)

===========================================
Aspartame Victims Support Group
http://presidiotex.com/aspartame/

MERCOLA (has numerous articles)
Aspartame: What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You
http://mercola.com/article/aspartame/hidden_dangers.htm

Janet Starr Hull's website
http://www.sweetpoison.com/

Aspartame Toxicity Info Center
http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/


World Natural Health Organization LINKS (includes some links re Splenda's dangers) http://www.wnho.net/aspartamenews.htm




Aspartame... the BAD news!
http://www.dorway.com/badnews.html

Artificial sweetners put the die in diet!
http://www.peak.sfu.ca/the-peak/98-3/issue2/sweet.html

Health Issues Links: http://jassekhmet.tripod.com/healthm.htm

10 mg Methanol From Aspatame Can Cause Blindness
http://www.rense.com/general38/10mg.htm

Documents relating to symptoms (LINKS!)
http://www.dorway.com/symptoms.html
Home page of massive aspartame info collection: http://www.dorway.com/

LETTER TO THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS WITH REGARD TO ASPARTAME
By Dr. Betty Martini
http://www.wnho.net/aapletter.htm


WHAT TO DO IF YOU HAVE USED ASPARTAME
By Neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock, M.D
http://www.wnho.net/wtdaspartame.htm

Former FDA Investigator Exposes Aspartame As Deadly Neurotoxin
That Never Should Have Been Approved
From Betty Martini 4-22-3
http://www.rense.com/general37/ddly.htm

--------------
Additional links in this DU DISCUSSION: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=66563#66735
indigobusiness (1000+ posts) Sat Aug-07-04 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #9
But, while Stevia can taste quite bad if used incorrectly, it is virtually indistinguishable from sugar if used correctly. It just cannot be used exactly the same way as sugar.

Research excitotoxins and see where aspartic acid takes you.

Are you going to tell me monosodium glutamate is harmless as well?

The Nutrasweet Lobby is powerful, indeed...but shame on Snopes for not digging a little deeper.
http://www.dorway.com/blaymsg.txt

Peer Reviewed Studies:
SURVEY OF ASPARTAME STUDIES:
CORRELATION OF OUTCOME
AND FUNDING SOURCES
http://www.dorway.com/peerrev.html

RAO Report (pivotal study)
http://www.dorway.com/raoreport.pdf

CDC Report
http://www.dorway.com/cdctext.txt
After reading this "full" report you can decide for yourself if the summary was adequate, correct, or a whitewash. Keep in mind that some of the studies that approved aspartame were the target of an indictment for fraud never carried out because two U.S. prosecutors went to work for the law firm defending the case, which let slip the hounds of disease and death on an unwarned public. On 60-Minutes (Dec. 29, 1996) Dr. Ralph Walton admitted that 83 of 90 INDEPENDENT studies on aspartame showed problems. The 60-Minute spokesman chided the aspartame representitives that 70 of 70 Searle funded tests seemed to show aspartame to be OK (however, it seems that Searle submitted around 112 documents and two of those studies were submitted to the Department of Justice for an indictment for fraud). Of Searle's many reports the FDA selected fifteen they termed as "pivotal" to their decision to approve aspartame as safe.

However, Dr. Moser (the Nutrasweet spokesman) admitted to JenniferCohen (http:/www.dorway.com/jcohen.html ) that:

"..the study should never have been undertaken, much less submitted as legitimate observation. This particular (RAO) experiment represents an unpardonable breach in methodology."

If this motivates the reader to action... http://www.dorway.com/congress.html is a good starting point for locating someone in authority to complain to. The President DHHS FDA and your congressional representatives.


The Bressler Report (FDA on Searle)
http://www.dorway.com/bressler.txt

Nexus Article
http://www.dorway.com/nexus.txt

NSDA Protest
http://www.dorway.com/nsda.txt


The Artificially Sweetened Times
http://www.vaclib.org/news/astimes.htm

I have little use for non-peer reviewed studies. I also have little use for corporate studies unless they have been reviewed independently. What I want to see are independent studies, peer reviewed and published in reputable scientific journals...if any of these links contain that...great...

it's really tough to come up with those when they're horribly, prohibitively expensive and the people sick and dying who have been negatively affected aren't billionaires so they can fund those types of studies, and the corporations work really hard to stifle the information they have that's negative, and there just aren't too many charities focusing on this type of thing.

But good luck with that. One day you too might realize that just because there aren't the kind of studies YOU think are required doesn't necessarily mean the anecdotal information isn't true and valid.

There isn't a shred of scientific proof from reputable sources to support this allegation...so we fall back on scare tactics. There have been numerous studies on other potential health hazards from reputable scientists based on reports of adverse effects (breast implants, cell phones, ephedra, vioxx etc etc). All produced by large powerful companies, which in some cases had to pay through the nose (Dow comes to mind). If there is a consistent pattern of complaints about Aspartame, the scientific community will take up the cause, just as they have done in the past.

Well, great googlie-mooglie, good golly, Miss Molly! what do you EXPECT since the guy who rammed through approval of this crap is now Secretary of War?


"EAT your Nutrasweet! I still get ROYALTIES from it!"


Here's another surprise: A website called "HFSCFACTS" is sponsored by the Corn Refiner's Association. It's the first hit when you google HFCS...Maybe if a PNAC luminary was involved with IT, you wouldn't be able to find information abotu the links between HFCS and Obesity.

Yeah, Tinfoil Hat stuff, but what IF? It has not been refuted, other than by the major players blowing off everyone, so AFAIC, it's still open to debate.

Rumsfeld saying "oh, golly, gee, are you asking if *I* drink it? Why, I thought it's been proven that it's perfectly safe. next question?" Is NOT proper "proof"...

That is all I want. There are plenty of independent organizations and Universities who are capable of conducting these studies who I would trust. Have any of them looked at this, and if they have what are their conclusions?

I dislike Rumsfeld as much as anybody, but I really think on issues such as these this is not enough. Before we go off scaring people unnecessarily it would be nice if there was some factual backup for the claims

Studies is what you want, well, "The Studies are Out There."

Obviously, you have enough education to understand what you're looking at without falling asleep. I do not. therefore, I rely on what other people tell me from the benefit of their experience and what I read from consumer advocacy groups.

I think there were plenty of "independant links" posted in other responses.
Have at them.

Nutrasweet's competitors would love to trot out a study that links aspartame to health problems. They'd even pay for a study.

Fact is, there have been a number of independent, rigorously designed scientific studies of aspartame, and all of them have come up with bupkis.

The problem is, *these* studies can't be used to sell vitamin supplements, herbal remedies, books, videotapes, and speaking engagements.

Real science doesn't easily translate into terrifying chain emails and websits full of hyperbolic, bold-faced scary words. Real science is full of all kinds of boring numbers and protocols and carefully worded conclusions based on evidence.

But I also concur with the assertion that the ONLY way we know science is real science is to look at a study done by a good, respectable, peer-reviewed journal. After examining the methodology, the statistics, the p-value, and the link between the conclusion and the data, then we can say for sure that aspartame is a bad, bad substance. As of yet, I have not seen such a study, so the scientist in me has to reserve judgement.

That being said, anecdotal evidence is important in determining whether or not one of the these studies needs to be done, so if you have an anecdotal piece of info about your experience with aspartame, then I would suggest you relate it to one of those advocacy groups or to the FDA.

Personally, aspartame stops my triglycerides from going sky-high, and considering that I KNOW I have genetic heart disease, I'll stick with aspartame over sugar. It's all about priorities.

I am not saying anectotal evidence is not valuable...it is this evidence that led to the studies on breast implants. I am just concerned with websites that state for absolute certainty, based on unreviewed science and questionable methods, that something is or isn't dangerous. Usually just frightens people unnecessarily.

(Yes, I'm re-reading Harry Potter 4)

I won't dispute the findings, or the facts of the original approval of the substance.

I would just point out that artificial sweeteners have made a huge difference in the lives of diabetics.

My co-vivant was diagnosed 3 years ago with Type II diabetes (in his late 40s), but after constant deterioration despite careful treatment throughout that time, it was finally determined that he actually has Type I diabetes (formerly known as "juvenile diabetes", because it usually emerges in childhood).

Type I diabetics manufacture no insulin in their bodies. They are unable to use the carbohydrates they ingest, and their bodies feed on their own fat, and eventually muscle, to keep them going. My 6'3" partner is 40 pounds lighter than he was 4 years ago, and he was already on the lean side.

For the next few weeks, he is on a diet that allows him 45 grams of carbohydrates, 3 times a day. We're hoping that once he is allowed to switch to the carb-counting, insulin-matching regime (eat mostly what he wants, match his insulin intake to what he eats), this will go up considerably. Imagine telling a man that size that he gets to eat one bagel (with maybe cheese and tomato) for breakfast, one can of soup *or* a tuna sandwich for lunch, and 1 and 1/2 cups of pasta for dinner -- with meat and veg, of course -- and no other carbohydrates during the day: no fruit, no sugar in coffee, no fruit juice, no popcorn, no cookies, no potatoes, no milk, no pop. If he didn't have diet coke and aspartame for his coffee, he'd be hell to live with, I tell ya. He'd have a choice between something he wanted that had sugar in it and food.

Aspartame means that diabetics (those who can stand the taste) get to have slightly less restricted lives, and maybe be slightly more likely to stay on their diets, and thus to stay alive. Untreated diabetes simply kills. And it would surely kill a lot faster than any effects of aspartame, and make them just as sick before dying.

(Only part of the population can taste it, and fortunately we can't, though we can taste one of the other sugar substitutes I've used in cooking, and it's vile and inedible. And my partner is one of the people who can't eat sorbitol, another sugar-substitute option, because of the violent stomach cramps it causes.)

Maybe it should be available by prescription only!

I'd say make it available with health warnings -- don't drink more than one of these things a day or week -- but they don't tend to work too well. Nonetheless, it is what we do for other things that are plainly harmful, like tobacco, or harmful if overused, like alcohol, that people simply won't tolerate being denied access to.

I guess I'd just say let's all consider ourselves lucky we can eat sugar (although I'm heading down the "impaired fasting glucose" road myself), and try to imagine what life would be like if we couldn't, and why some people would rather use aspartame, hopefully moderately, than not have that option.

... wife myself (type I).

Your post sounds like you cook with aspartame. I sure hope not, the stuff is not for any kind of heating, it definitely breaks down under heat.

I don't eat sugar - I'm not diabetic but my body cannot deal with sugar at all, doctors just get misty when I try to get some idea why.

I eat some aspartame, but cannot eat Splenda, it makes me itch all over (this took me weeks and lots of lost sleep to figure out). Good old sacharrine is my preferred sweetener, and after years of using it I don't notice an aftertaste at all.

We use Equal for coffee (that's aspartame, right?). I've tried making cakes with Spenda, and once tried the apple pie recipe on the Splenda box. Absolutely and completely revolting -- no itching though! It just hit whatever taste buds it affects, which seemed to be bitter, and stayed there. (This is odd for me, because I'm a "non-taster" -- can't taste aspartame, love very sweet things, hate dark chocolate, etc.) It got sent out for the raccoons, lucky them. That's sucralose. And I find a website about the "secret dangers of Spenda (sucralose)" at the top of google's results for splenda sucralose.

Huh, speaking of selling only on prescription -- I'd actually thought that saccharine was not available in Canada:

http://www.diabetes.ca/Section_About/sweeteners.asp

In Canada, saccharine is available only as a tabletop sweetener and is sold in tablet or powder form in pharmacies. It is 300 times sweeter than sucrose (table sugar) but has a slightly bitter/metallic aftertaste. Because saccharine is not metabolized in the human body, it does not contribute energy or calories. Saccharin has been the center of controversy for many years because of its alleged relationship with cancer; however, research studies have been unable to find direct associations.

I know it's not in grocery stores. Can ya cook with it? That's the big problem I'm trying to solve; Mr. Diabetic loves his baked goodies, and I can do various things to up the fibre & nutrient content and lower the carb content (cake with whole-grain flour, wheat germ, rolled oats, nuts and fruit, cream cheese with lemon and Equal for icing), but just can't beat the sweetening problem. Methinks saccharine would be a tad expensive though, given the way it's sold here.

Cyclamate is marketed under the brand name SucarylTM and is used in Sugar TwinTM and Weight WatchersTM. It is 30 times sweeter than table sugar and has no aftertaste. This sweetener is heat stable, so it can be used in hot and cold foods. Cyclamate is heat stable, so you can cook and bake with it without losing its sweet taste. In Canada, cyclamate can only be purchased as a tabletop sweetener or as a sweetening additive in medication.

That, I don't know why. But I might give it a shot, if I can find it.

And I don't know about this one:

Acesuflame Potassium (AceK) is the latest nonnutritive sweetener approved by Health Canada. It is marketed under the brand name SunettTM. AceK is found in beverages, fruit spreads, baked goods, dessert bases, tabletop sweeteners, hard candies, chewing gum and breath fresheners. It is 200 times sweeter than table sugar. People who are on a potassium restricted diet or have sulfa-antibiotic based allergies should discuss the use of Ace-K with their physician.

Haven't seen it on the shelves.

For things other than baked goods -- like the sugar-laden canned baked beans that the c.v. loves to shovel down with wieners (one small can seems to be his entire day's carb allowance), yech, even though I provide him with tasty healthful unsweetened firey-hot chili -- I just thought of something today. (He just started insulin 2 weeks ago.) Matching the baked beans ingredient for ingredient -- but omitting the sugar/molasses whatever, and he could add Equal *after* reheating a bowlful. Worth a try!

... well I have been trying to find a way to make tasty treats without sugar for 25 years :)

My wife has also. We've had very little real success with respect to baked goods. Here's why I think - most baked items use sugar to help with the "rising" and the browning. You can make cookies. brownies, whatever without sugar - but the texture is just not right. Not even close really. So even though you can cook with saccarine, it doesn't break down under heat - the results are just never very good. :(

I can eat stuff with carbohydrate sweeteners like maltitol, sorbitol, and there are a couple other (but not maltodextrin) - but I've never found a source for those things to use for cooking, but there are some commercially made cookies for example that are not too bad. And this "no carb" craze added a few products to the shelves that I can enjoy.

All of the soft drink makers are switching from Nutrasweet to Splenda. I don't drink many soft drinks, but I won't be drinking any once the switch is completed. (BTW - Splenda tastes worse than Nutrasweet to me, I suspecting that the switch is motivated by cost).

Last aside, I've read estimates that as many as 10% of folks have the itching problem with splenda, although the problem is not well publicized. If so, soft drink makers stand to lose 10% of their diet soda sales. Doesnt' seem that business savvy to me.

but I've come to understand that the human body is simply not built for eating the way we are (almost) all of us eating. Your current approach, which is to try to get away with continuing to eat that way, isn't going to work, not in the long run.

For a good explanation of the physiology involved, check out the book "South Beach Diet" from your library. I'm not suggesting the DIET (tho it's quite good, IMO), but its explanation of insulin resistance and all the problems that causes, and how it is that it develops.

If you want to avoid future health problems of an extremely severe nature, you'll need to think in terms of for all practical purposes giving up sugar, refined carbohydrates and probably artificial sweeteners (which for some people trigger the same insulin response that actual sugar does).

We're simply not intended to eat this way, and after decades of doing so, the body can't continue without breaking down in one or several ways. I blame the food industry. If and when you decide to eliminate unnecessary sugar(s) from your diet, you will find it quite challenging to find ANYthing in a box, bag or jar which doesn't have some kind of sugar added. I noticed sugar added to peanut butter back in the early 1970s -- and there was NO reason for it either then or now. I noticed sugar added to deli-style packeged MEATS in the deli section of the grocery store the other day. Again, no reason on earth, no GOOD reason.

Good luck to you and your partner. I hope you'll find a healthful way forward.

Well, for dinner tonight, we're having beef saag, made by my own hands -- beef (I'm sure I shouldn't be eating that), frozen spinach (frozen spinach has benefits for warding off the possibly-hereditary macular degeneration my father suffered that fresh spinach does not have, inexplicably), canned tomatoes (which are also, for some reason, better than fresh tomatoes -- but like frozen spinach, just more darned convenient), orange and red bell peppers, yogurt cheese (made by my own hands from 1% fat yogurt) and mushrooms, and many spices. With brown basmati rice. And maybe an orange for dessert.

Last night, it was whole-wheat spaghetti (you get to deduct the fibre grams from the carbohydrate grams), and the spaghetti sauce made by my own hands -- canned tomatoes, extra-lean ground beef, many onions and mushrooms, much celery, and much garlic. And a caesar salad -- lettuce, tomato, vidalia onion, cucumber, with a truly yummy storebought dressing (a house brand version of Renée's, if you know it) with only a trace of sugar and salt, and of course no croutons. With, I have to admit, the leftover cheesecake, made by my own hands with non-fat cream cheese and that yogurt cheese, a crust of graham cracker crumbs and salt-free Becel margarine, and cinnamon for the magic effect it's alleged to have on blood sugar and what the hell why not, blueberries (frozen too, just for convenience) and, yes, some sugar - a half cup for quite a large cheesecake, half of what the recipe in the Heart Healthy Cookbook called for. Blueberries have sugar in 'em, of course, but they also have food, and people had been eating them for rather a long time before even the indigenous peoples of North America discovered South Beach, I'd say.

I'm not sure, really, what you think my "current approach" is, and which way it is that I would like "to try to get away with continuing to eat". I was weaned (well, in a manner of speaking, when I ran off to university at a young age) on Adele Davis.

And I've actually become pretty conversant with the physiology involved. I found this site to provide quite a good summary:
http://www.food2live.co.uk/info/diabetes-wilkin.asp
"Notes prepared by Terry Wilkin (Professor of Endocrinology and Metabolism) and Christina O’Riordan (Senior Research Dietician) Peninsula Medical School, Plymouth Campus, UK"

(The c.v. is unfortunately a kinetic and slightly aural learner, and just coming out of the "anger" stage of his diagnosis, and I'm a visual and slightly kinetic learner, and the cook, so I'm ahead of him on the learning curve, because I've been doing the reading. He needed the cloying dietitician and her socratic-method-for-dummies session the other day to get the hang of what this was all about. *Then* he read the stuff I'd been gathering up, when a sufficient breach had been made into his brain. Next month, carb class ...)

I can't stand peanut butter myself, but the c.v. made his way through a sugar and salt free jar last week. He thought it pretty disgusting, but he'll get used to it.

As far as sugar in deli meats, I can't imagine it. I'll check it out, but it doesn't strike me as a particularly Canadian thing to do. I did stop shopping at my formerly favourite grocery chain, because I cook pork from time to time (and shop for about six weeks at a time, less the fresh veg and bread that is acquired in the interim, and want everything in one place), and it started selling only "seasoned" fresh pork, i.e. pork soaked in salt.

What I was trying to "get away with" by using an artificial sweetener in cooking, btw, was to make:

(1) a banana cake, adapting my mum's long-time recipe by using at least half whole-wheat flour, adding walnuts and oat bran and blueberries, and using yogurt instead of some of the oil. It would have been tolerably fine -- and really quite nutricious -- had it not been for the vile Spenda.

(2) an apple pie, made with my mum's crust recipe: flour (half of it whole-wheat), canola oil and 1% fat milk. No lard or shortening, no sugar. And apples. And cinnamon. And I think a bit of flour or cornstarch; I forget. Not an especially unhealthy modern concoction. Again, had it not been for the vile Splenda ... the problem being that without *some* sauce sort of arrangement, it's just dried-up apples in a crust, and that's kind of weird.

Even before his first diagnosis, we (and me before him) were not big consumers of packaged or fast foods or donuts, I assure you. (And the Canadian diet in general isn't quite as heavily made up of packaged and fast foods as the US diet.) We just, unfortunately, liked to balance out our nutricious delicious meals with a Giant Brownie. ;)

Or a butter tart. Hell, there's hardly any point in being Canadian if you can't eat butter tarts ... even if you never do get around to making them yourself from your grandmother's decades-old recipe ...


"Buttery Yum. Yummy Butter. Yum Yum
Butter. Bummery Yut. Yummy Butt. Yuttery
Bum. Bah Dum Bump."
http://www.infinitymonkey.com/coffeeclub/archive/april6k21/april6k21.shtml

that you actually had a very good basic understanding -- but was too lazy to go back and try to "fix" my earlier post, tho I should have. I apologize.

Your dinners sound wonderful, tho with more grains and sugars than I do well on.

The packaged deli meats I was referring to include Lean Cuisine (I think), Oscar Meyer, Purdue, and the like. I'm not totally sure each and every one of each brand, but one week I was able to get no sugar in Oscar Meyer, and the next week not. And the other brands were full of sugar -- and remember, by "sugar" I'm not talking JUST table sugar, but any added sugars, which can include maltose, dextrose, fructose, corn syrup, corn syrup solids, etc., etc., etc. And I won't eat artificial sweeteners, so they're automatically out.

Edited: I really no longer consider obesity a "cause" of insulin resistance. I believe in my heart that it's mostly another symptom of insulin resistance. I could be wrong. :shrug:

The grains etc.: we're sticking to the 45-grams-of-carb-per-meal regime for the month, to make it possible to figure out the c.v.'s insulin ratio. *I* insist that the carbs be as whole-grain and high-fibre as possible, because otherwise you just have to eat something else to get the nutrients that the white pasta and potato chips aren't giving you. ;)

I really no longer consider obesity a "cause" of insulin resistance. I believe in my heart that it's mostly another symptom of insulin resistance. I could be wrong.

When the results of the post mortem done on my father were received (my dad was dying of metastacized melanoma, but died suddenly, at 73, long before the cancer should have killed him, and we had a few questions that were left unanswered), it was determined that he had died of an ischemic thingy caused by major quadruple blockage of the cardiac arteries. He'd needed a quadruple bypass, basically. Never diagnosed. Had no symptoms. Was on cholesterol and BP meds, they were well under control. He rode a bike daily. What all that (and quitting smoking early, and eating pretty well, and not drinking) had done was delay the virtually inevitable by a few years. His dad had died of the condition at 65. His younger brother had a debilitating stroke at 45.

We (4 middle-aged kids) were advised that the condition was hereditary, and to get checked out.

I eventually started looking into the hereditary-ness. What's hereditary is actually an inability to deal with cholesterol. (There are something like 6 degrees of the disorder, the worst of which kills people before adulthood.)
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000392.htm
And the resulting symptoms are not *caused* by obesity -- obesity is one of the *symptoms* of the disorder. So the chubbiness of me and all my siblings, and of the cousins who are the kids of the uncle with the stroke (two of whom are dead ringers for me and one of my brothers), isn't just a result of coincidence or loose living. But, unfair though it all is, we gotta do something about it - because it *is* then a risk factor in itself.

Insulin resistance / obesity might reasonably be thought to have a similar cause/symptom relationship. But obesity (particularly the "apple" body shape which, yes, we all inherited, where fat is deposited inside the gut and is now being regarded as "hormonally active", and not just dead weight) becomes causal as well as symptomatic.

I have used Splenda in cooking of kinds for a few years, and nobody can tell I am not using sugar. I think it tastes exactly like sugar. Cheesecakes, chocolate mousse, salad dressings...I have had great success.

And I deeply resent that *I* am one of the minority who can taste the damned stuff!

I always thought my best friend was in one of her imaginary states when she whined about being able to taste aspartame. The stuff is tasteless, sez I. But it turns out that this is one of the characteristics of "tasters" -- they're much more sensitive to the taste of sugar (preferring dark chocolate to milk chocolate, for instance, as she does, whereas dark chocolate tastes like asphalt to me), and they can taste aspartame.

To me and the co-vivant, Splenda tastes burnt and bitter. He didn't notice it as much as I did in the banana-blueberry-walnut cakes ... which was fortunate, because I'd made a half dozen of them. ;)

But someone else pointed out to me: the trick may be to use it in chocolate things (like you mentioned), since the chocolate masks the taste more. I'm going to give that -- or even half and half with sugar, reducing the total somewhat -- a shot.

I am not a diabetic, but I am interested in lowering my sugar consumption and since I have to have my daily cup of tea sweetened, I looked into stevia. It's a natural calorie-free sweetener, extracted from a plant that's native to Peru but can be grown elsewhere. It's expensive, to be sure, but I've found that it tastes pretty good. You can supposedly cook with it too.

This is who I buy my stevia from:
http://www.nunaturals.com/

And here's their stevia page:
http://www.nunaturals.com/products/stevia.html

Other post in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1627997&mesg_id=1628572

http://www.cspinet.org/nah/05_04/sweet_nothings_canada.pdf

Stevia
Also known as: Sweet leaf, honey leaf.

What is it?
An extract from a shrub that grows in Brazil and Paraguay.

Why it's low-calorie:
Our bodies can't metabolize stevia.

Safety:
When male rats were fed high doses of stevioside (stevia's active ingredient) for 22 months, they produced fewer sperm and there was increased cell proliferation in their testicles, which could cause infertility. And when female hamsters were fed large amounts of a derivative of stevioside, they had fewer and smaller offspring. That -- combined with the absence of other animal studies that are normally required for food additives -- led Health Canada, the European Union, the World Health Organization, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to conclude that stevia shouldn't be allowed in food.

Comments:
Stevia can't be used as an ingredient in food. But it can be sold in health food and grocery stores and pharmacies (as a liquid or in individual packets), since safety rules for "natural health products" are looser than rules for foods. Stevia is promoted by the health-food industry as a natural alternative to synthetic sweeteners like saccharin, cyclamate, and aspartame.

But "natural" doesn't automatically mean "safe."

It seems to me that anyone who objected to those tests on the "large amounts" basis would have to say the same about aspartame/Spenda tests.

Cocaine is a derivative of a leaf grown in South America too ... but I'm not going to use it to replace my diet coke just yet. ;)

Basically, I take the approach that a little bit of any of these things, including stevia, isn't likely going to kill me or even do anything bad to me. I've been nagging at the co-vivant to cut down the diet coke consumption though, if only because I'm tired of paying hundreds of dollars a year for, um, nothing.

I'm curious enough about stevia that I might check for it in a health food store next time I'm in one. Given our misfortune with the statistical incidence of Spenda-tasting, we'll probably turn out to be in the minority that finds stevia vile too. ;)

I hadn't heard of any studies linking stevia to anything, so I appreciate the info. Even though my reproductive days are (hopefully) behind me!

Yeah, I think in life it all comes down to the same thing: everything in moderation. Too much of ANYTHING is likely to harm you in some way. My 1/2 teaspoon of stevia in my tea will hopefully be OK. :)

I use lots of sweet and low...

The FDA very quietly removed saccharin from the GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) list some time ago....

All the fake sweetners, Splenda included, are toxic, except maybe erythritol, which the Japanese use a lot. Wonder why not here? And that acesulfame stuff is one of the worst.

Your one alternative is Stevia, a plant used for centuries for sweetening in South America. If you're interested in seeing how U.S. money trumps science and the public interest every time, go read the stevia story: http://www.stevia.net

unfortunately, it doesn't taste anywhere near as good as sugar. In fact, it tastes worse than all the artificial sweeteners except for saccharin - to me, anyway.

I use it for sweetening things and am perfectly happy with it.

Normally I use the liquid extract, but occasionally I use the white powder. There's also little packets available with filler in, so you can use it in your coffee or on your cereal more like sugar. FOS is the better filler, and is actually supposed to be good for you too.

I think it's probably okay for lightly sweetened things, but I don't like the taste of it much. Maybe I have too much of a sweet tooth. LOL. I probably use too much. If I don't use much, it's not sweet enough, and if I use enough, it starts to taste bad to me.

I don't trust any website's "information" if they have an "Order Now" button.

and you'll see that what they say is true.... That was just the easiest link for me to remember.

She said she was getting dizzy and blacking out. Well, I asked if she was drinking a lot of diet drinks...to which she said no...then it was a conversation about artificial sugars and it turned out that she had been drinking a lot of nutra sweetened tea thingys. (She's not always the brightest).

I told her to lay off those for at least a couple of weeks to see if that cleared it up, and in general to stay away from artificial sugars.


I haven't heard anything else about that problem, so I'm assuming it was the aspartame. I stay away from it. I drink mostly water and unsweetened tea...and if I want a soda, I drink the real thing.

Just consider how bad sugar is. I mean, it's proven that stuff can lead to tooth decay. Do you know how many people die from complications due to tooth decay such as staph infections? A lot more than die from aspartame, I can tell you that.

lead to brain abscesses and also to heart problems.

In my post, I noted the huge benefits of artificial sweeteners for diabetics, in terms of quality of life and ability to maintain the diet that keeps them alive.

But sugar isn't bad just for diabetics, and rotten teeth aren't the only bad things it causes.

Overconsumption of foods high in sugar is one of the factors that contributes to the development of Type II diabetes in adulthood. Obviously there are other factors, overweight being perhaps the most significant -- but overweight is in part attributable to overconsumption of foods that are attractive (and aggressively marketed to the public that finds them attractive) because of their sugar content, and poor choices because of their sugar (and fat) content.

Used to be so expensive that only kings and princes had access to it. I highly recommend reading The Sugar Blues by William Dufty. You'll be amazed at the corporate moneys behind the whole sugar thing!

http://www.dolfzine.com/page162.htm

My husband and I are sugar addicts and we try to stay away from it but occasionally fall off the wagon. Staying off sugar has been WAY harder for us than quitting cigarettes!

toothbrushes are also rather cheap: it's the sticky food that really hits ya in the teeth (literally): taffy, caramel, chewed-up cracker mush that everybody insists on breathing on people's faces with...

Saccharin, Aspartame, Sorbitol, etc., or just plain sugar or high-fructose corn syrup, I found I was consuming way too much. Now I drink seltzer and iced tea, but I could kick myself for the amount of crap put out by Coca-Cola or Pepsi I drank while growing up.

Some days it was 6 cans or more!

And not the giant size, usually a small (or one can). But, I can say that I just drink water or maybe unsweetened iced tea.

I know, it's so hot here during the summer, a soda isn't going to help me if I'm thirsty.

I just think of sodas as a treat once a week at most.

They too have developed a taste for iced tea and seltzer, but there is still pressure from the markets for them to drink the Coke/Pepsi stuff.

I just drink water or maybe unsweetened iced tea.
Have you noticed just how difficult it is to find pre-bottled ice tea in the stores? Everybody has the sweetened kind! Even the natural food stores have a very small selection of unsweetened tea.

I keep a lot of iced tea in the frig that I brew at home. Right now, the family prefers Honeybush Peach--unsweetened, of course!

It's either sweetened or with a fake lemon flavor.

I tried that lemon water, but it was sweet, like a watered down lemonade.

And, if I'm at a fast food place, most of them have iced tea, so I'll get that instead of a coke.

People who like unsweetened tea are rare. My mom just never served it with sugar, so I don't like it when it does have sugar.

at the drop of a hat.

(Sorry...I'm in a sassing mood.) I should probably take it to the Lounge. :)

I'll take sugar, thanks. Everything else tastes like a sidewalk.

with us, I drove him all over town practically trying to find him diet drinks that did not have aspartame in them. He was having trouble controlling his sugar at the time.


I didn't realize until Andy told me that Rummy had a hand in getting that shit to market. Figures.

try stivia - it's available at health food stores.


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

and it's quite good.

You just make a strong infusion (tea) of fresh grated ginger, strain it a bit, and mix with a bit of Stevia and carbonated water. Very nice. GOOD for you, too, as ginger is a very beneficial herb.

From the Canadian edition of the Nutrition Action Healthletter, May 2004 (my c.v.'s mother subscribes us):

http://www.cspinet.org/nah/05_04/sweet_nothings_canada.pdf

Stevia
Also known as: Sweet leaf, honey leaf.

What is it?
An extract from a shrub that grows in Brazil and Paraguay.

Why it's low-calorie:
Our bodies can't metabolize stevia.

Safety:
When male rats were fed high doses of stevioside (stevia's active ingredient) for 22 months, they produced fewer sperm and there was increased cell proliferation in their testicles, which could cause infertility. And when female hamsters were fed large amounts of a derivative of stevioside, they had fewer and smaller offspring. That -- combined with the absence of other animal studies that are normally required for food additives -- led Health Canada, the European Union, the World Health Organization, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to conclude that stevia shouldn't be allowed in food.

Comments:
Stevia can't be used as an ingredient in food. But it can be sold in health food and grocery stores and pharmacies (as a liquid or in individual packets), since safety rules for "natural health products" are looser than rules for foods. Stevia is promoted by the health-food industry as a natural alternative to synthetic sweeteners like saccharin, cyclamate, and aspartame.

But "natural" doesn't automatically mean "safe."

It's one of those tough calls, again, eh?

The FDA (and Health Canada, which I find mildly trustworthy) on one side, health food stores and their customers on the other.

But hmm. If the agencies in question had approved the substance for sale as a food ... wouldn't there have been some big multinational agri-business corp just ready to leap in and make a bundle on it? Wouldn't Coca-Cola have been wanting to use it, maybe? I wonder who wanted to get approval for it in the first place?

When male rats were fed high doses of stevioside (stevia's active ingredient) for 22 months, they produced fewer sperm and there was increased cell proliferation in their testicles, which could cause infertility.

Most excellent. I think there are far too many rats in the world as it is.

Okay, feeling silly tonight.

I don't know that I believe that our bodies can't metabolize stevia. It's an HERB that's been in wide use in South America for many years, and for hypoglycemia, diabetes (IIRC) and other blood sugar problems. That's got to mean some metabolism going on. Perhaps STEVIOSIDE by itslef can't be metabolized??

And, in fact, a quick and cursory google search yields some interesting links on the first page:

In a long-term, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical study, stevia reduced systolic and diastolic blood pressure. On average, participants' blood pressure reduced from baseline 150 mm/Hg to 140 mm/Hg systolic and 95 mm/Hg to 89 mm/Hg diastolic.

And, in another double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical study, stevia lowered blood pressure quite significantly—by an average of 14 millimeters of mercury in both systolic and diastolic readings. Those are impressive numbers!

Despite its role as a sweetener, stevia may have a side benefit to for those with hypertension— blood sugar regulation. Scientific studies show that extracts of stevia showed regulated blood sugar and reduced blood pressure.

A clinical study showed that stevia extract actually improved glucose tolerance by decreasing plasma glucose levels during the test and after overnight fasting in all participants.16 Regulating blood sugar is very important for those with high blood pressure. When blood sugar levels are high, blood vessels are inflamed. Many people with diabetes have high blood pressure as well. In a paired, cross-over clinical study, stevioside (one of the compounds in stevia) reduced glucose levels in individuals with type 2 diabetes. Further scientific studies show that stevia works to control blood sugar levels by stimulating insulin secretion by the pancreatic beta cells. It shows great potential in treating type 2 diabetes as well as hypertension.

http://www.newstarget.com/008061.html


This one says larger studies are needed, but still has some interesting info:
In South America, stevia has been used to lower blood sugar in individuals with diabetes. Evidence from laboratory and animal studies seems to show that stevia may help to control blood sugar levels by delaying the absorption of sugar from the intestines. Additionally, chemicals – primarily the glycosides stevioside and rebaudioside A – in stevia may also encourage the production of insulin by the body. Glycosides are substances, generally produced by plants, that contain both sugar and non-sugar components. In the body, the sugar part usually separates from the rest of the molecule, producing many different possible effects that depend on the total composition of the glycoside. Many glycosides affect heart function. The potential anti-diabetic property of stevia needs to be verified by larger scientific studies in humans.

Results from animal studies have shown that stevia may have a blood-pressure lowering effect, as well. snip

http://www.drugdigest.org/DD/DVH/HerbsWho/0,3923,552027%7CStevia,00.html


Another link with kinda basic, overview info, including re safety:
http://www.n101.com/HealthNotes/HNs/Herb/Stevia.htm


And finally, a very pro-Stevia site, which is probably the website of an Atlantan whom I almost know -- the woman who developed the Body Ecology Diet. http://www.stevia.net/

I'm absolutely sure you could find at least as many if not more anti-stevia sites and perhaps even studies. My point is simply that -- well, I personally trust the natural food folks far, far more than the bureaucrats, and stevia has a very good reputation with many.

The link: a "naturopathic cardiologist"? An "NMD" is not an "MD". Not an authoritative source for many of us. Hearsay from such a source ... I dunno. I could search for the original sources of those allegations I guess ...

I don't know that I believe that our bodies can't metabolize stevia. It's an HERB that's been in wide use in South America for many years, and for hypoglycemia, diabetes (IIRC) and other blood sugar problems.

And the reason for using it for that purpose is to replace sugar. The benefits are pretty obviously from the reduced sugar intake, not from anything done by stevia, no?

I could eat gravel, and it would go in one end and out the other, and not be metabolized. If I ate gravel instead of eating potato chips, I'm sure my cholesterol and blood pressure would go down.

My point is simply that -- well, I personally trust the natural food folks far, far more than the bureaucrats, and stevia has a very good reputation with many.

The newsletter I linked to is published by the Centre for Science in the Public Interest.

Anyone who says Diet Coke is the same as Diet Pepsi should be thrown in jail ! Diet Coke is Urine !

I have noticed Aspartame in non-diet vitamins, chewing gum, etc.!!!

Drank instant iced tea with Nutrasweet for ten years or more. I knew I shoulda stuck to beer full time.

I always say give me the "real deal". I don't want "NO FAT FREE" "SUGAR FREE"...and all the other "FREES". I already know I'm going to die. We all will. People just need to learn how to enjoy the pure gifts in moderation.

http://www.snopes.com/toxins/aspartame.asp

Being a diet coke addict I'd like to believe them....but I don't know.

This is 2005.

Snopes is still active, is it not?

Oh well...I understand hating Rumsfeld...I hate him, too.

But I love my Diet Dr. Pepper.

In fact, I have seen them screw the pooch on occasion and the crap info is still there. After all, it takes little more than a puter to write shit on the internet

They're usually right and they DO cite their sources. Completely impartial as far as I can see.

We've all gotta die of something.

I've never had any problem with nutri-sweet in my Diet Coke. I don't drink as much as I used to, for reasons having to do with the carbonation (teeth and gut).

I tried a Diet Coke with splenda and really hated the way it tasted. I have always loved it with nutri-sweet, sacharine was nasty (remember when the only diet pops were TAB and Fresca?)

Humans think we can "improve" on the plan.. We cannot:(

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=29529

The FDA will eventually smell the MONEY and it'll be more commonly available here in the States...