Is Splenda your friend??? I think not!!!

snip

"Splenda, also known as sucralose, is artificial sweetener which is a chlorinated sucrose derivative. Facts about this artificial chemical follows:

* Pre-Approval Research
Pre-approval research showed that sucralose caused shrunken thymus glands (up to 40% shrinkage) and enlarged liver and kidneys. The manufacturer put forth two arguments in an attempt to claim that sucralose is not toxic:

1. The dose of sucralose in the experiments was high. However, for chemicals that do not have generations of safe use, the dosage tested must be adjusted for variations in potential toxicity within the human population and between humans and rodents. In order to this, toxicologists estimate a variation of effects in the human population of 10 times. In other words, one person may not have effects until a dose of 10 mg per kg of body weight (10 mg/kg) is reached, while another person may have chronic toxicity effects at 1 mg per kg of body weight (1 mg/kg). In addition, it is well known that many chemicals are much more toxic in humans than in rodents (or even monkeys). For example, the chemicals that the sweetener aspartame breaks down into vary from 5 to 50 times more toxic in humans than in rodents. Therefore, toxicologists estimate a further 10 times the dose for differences between human and rodent toxicity for a total of 100 times (10 * 10).

In order to estimate a potential safe dose in humans, one must divide the lowest dose in given to rodents that was seen to have any negative effects on their thymus glands, liver or kidneys by 100. That dose is then known as the maximum Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) for lifetime use. Keep in mind that the TDI is just an estimate. Some chemicals are much more than 10 times more toxic in humans than in rodents (or will cause cancer in humans in low-dose, long-term exposure and do not cause cancer in rodents at all). A person ingesting the TDI for some chemical may find that it causes cancer or immune system or neurological problems after many years or decades of use. So, if the manufacturer claims that the dose was equivalent to 50 diet sodas, then the TDI would be one half (1/2) of a diet soda, and even that dose may or may not be safe.

2. The manufacturer claimed that the sucralose was unpleasant for the rodents to eat in large doses. They said that starvation caused the shruken thymus glands. From the New Scientist (23 Nov 1991, pg 13):

Bellin reviewed studies on rats starved under experimental conditions, and concluded that their growth rate could be reduced by as much as a third without the thymus losing a significant amount of weight (less than 7 percent). The changes were much more marked in rats fed on sucralose. While the animals' growth rate was reduced by between 7 and 20 percent, their thymuses shrank by as much as 40 percent.

Other adverse effects reported in pre-approval research included:

o Shrunken thymus glands (up to 40% shrinkage) (EO56)
o Enlarged liver and kidneys. (EO57 & E161)
o Atrophy of lymph follicles in the spleen and thymus (EO51, EO56, EO151)
o Increased cecal weight (E151)
o Reduced growth rate (EO57)
o Decreased red blood cell count (EO55)
o Hyperplasia of the pelvis (EO57)
o Extension of the pregnancy period
o Aborted pregnancy (E134)
o Decreased fetal body weights and placental weights (EO32)
o Diarrhea

* Recent Research
A possible problem with caecal enlargement and renal mineralization has been seen in post approval animal research.

* Sucralose Breaks Down
Despite the manufacturer's mis-statements, sucralose does break down into small amounts of 1,6-dichlorofructose, a chemical that has not been adequately tested in humans.

* Independent, Long-Term Human Research
None. Manufacturer's "100's of studies" (some of which show hazards) were clearly inadequate and do not demonstrate safety in long-term use.

* Chlorinated Pesticides
The manufacturer claims that the chlorine added to sucralose is similar to the chlorine atom in the salt (NaCl) molecule. That is not the case. Sucralose may be more like ingesting tiny amounts of chlorinated pesticides, but we will never know without long-term, independent human research.

* Conclusion
While it is unlikely that sucralose is as toxic as the poisoning people are experiencing from Monsanto's aspartame, it is clear from the hazards seen in pre-approval research and from its chemical structure that years or decades of use may contribute to serious chronic immunological or neurological disorders.
"end snip
http://www.holisticmed.com/splenda/

I Quit using it monday fyi

:puke:

Exactly like Sweet-N-Low.

And Sweet-and-Low is gross.

:puke:

I really didn't like the way my body felt. :( Now I understand it :scared: thank you!

i think just plain old sugar in moderated amouts is tons better

Or were just plain nasty tasting. x(

I'd rather take the steps to wean myself from craving sweets than ingest any more of this crap. I LOVED it when it first came out, but I knew about all the health issues with aspartame and that made me rethink Splenda. Sounds like that was a wise choice. Scary.

I'd like a head start before you all throw rocks at me.:hide:

http://www.wnho.net/splenda.htm
"n a simple word you would just as soon have DDT in your food as Splenda, because sucralose is a chlorocarbon. The chlorocarbons have long been famous for causing organ, genetic, and reproductive damage. It should be no surprise, therefore, that the testing of sucralose, even at less than the level demanded by FDA rules, reveals that it has been shown to cause up to 40%shrinkage of the thymus: A gland that is the very foundation of our immune system. It also causes swelling of the liver and kidneys, and CALCIFICATION of the kidney."snip

sodas.

I KNOW the connection is there... I just down in my gut, deep down, absolutely, true as can be, KNOW it. It's just an instinct.

How about a scientific study? Of course, we'd hate to let science get in the way of irrational proclamations.

corporations, now, could we?

There have been studies done, but they all get squished and poo-poo'd and disclaimed.

But the people drinking that crap can't be bothered to 'do the math'. It's so, so sad.

and not someone's interpretations of them, I'd love to see them.

peace out

I wonder how peeps react to splenda...

I used to sprinkle a packet of Splenda on my oatmeal. I've reverted to using natural sugar (and you don't need much, really!).

sugar is a refined product, as is splenda, both refined at the same plant from cane in louisiana in my area

if you are sprinkling sufficient sugar on your cereal to sweeten it, you are already hitting your body w. a huge huge dose of sugar compared to what nature intended

there was no sugar 10,000 yrs ago, only the rare and lucky find of honey once in a blue moon

what you call moderation, what virtually everyone considers "moderation" is a sugar overdose that is extremely harmful to some people, altho some can tolerate it, just as some can smoke away at will well into their 80s

the diabetes and metabolic syndrome explosion is not caused by splenda nor are you consuming sugar in moderation altho i hope you are one of the lucky ones who can actually tolerate eating cereal w. sugar ea. morning, by my husband's glucose tests, looks like he is one of the unlucky who cannot eat a bowl of cereal at all and there are many more like him

sadly the meter doesn't lie

sugar kills -- even sugar in "moderation" which turns out to be not moderation at all, NO amount of added sugar is sugar in moderation

Blech. :puke:

Even if it were an ideal product otherwise, that's an excelent reason to stay far far away.

And I've virtually given up on Aspartame, too, after reading about the FDA "approval" process for it. Rumsfeld? Oy. I'll have a very occasional diet coke, but that's it. And I'm diabetic. If you want to avoid artificial sweetners enough, you can.

I also found a strong correlation between giving up aspartame and no longer craving sweets, as well as feeling less anxious and spacy. Coincidence? :shrug:

I live by it, too. ;)

without either putting chemicals in your body to satisfy your sweet tooth, or to forego your favorite foods.

You can't win either way. Deprivation or death. Pick your poison.

Use it wisely, in moderation.

Very few people can stay on a "deprivation" diet for a lifetime.

it is a refined product, just like the gasoline in your car

Have you ever wondered what that little line, in small print, on the back of the diet coke can means when it says "Not a diet food?"

My doctor clued me into this in high school when I made a joke about being addicted to diet coke. She told me that when your tongue tastes sugar, then your body releases the enzymes (or whatever) that it needs to digest sugar. When the stomach doesn't actually get sugar, the body starts craving sugar. It has to do something with the substances that it has produced. The usual result is a craving for carbs or sweets.

While I've never investigated this, it seems to make sense. Go to any take out place and watch the soda dispenser. It is an interesting experiment.

like I'm coming down with the flu. I've only had a few sodas and a piece of pie with that stuff in it, and that was enough.

Now I'm off all sweeteners. I miss chocolate and creme brulee, but I feel better. :-)

I just found a diet soda that I liked: Jones sugar free Creme Soda. Holy crap that shit is better than the original stuff. And now splenda is evil? Son of a Bitch!
Duckie

" * Conclusion
While it is unlikely that sucralose is as toxic as the poisoning people are experiencing from Monsanto's aspartame, it is clear from the hazards seen in pre-approval research and from its chemical structure that years or decades of use may contribute to serious chronic immunological or neurological disorders."

NOTHING is "clear from chemical structure." That's why testing is done in the first place.

You're going to ruin a very impressive-looking piece of fearmongering!

and expose of the fluoridation process for drinking water?

and ice cream....children's ice cream.....

It's makes things taste funny.

But, considering my kidneys will already be shot in a few decades, what's the diff. ? lol

i think it hits people's taste buds differently, i find it nice flavor just not as sweet and certainly a big improvement on sickeningly sweet nutrasweet, my husband can't taste the sweet at all in splenda, a friend finds it tastes just like sugar to him

if it works for you, don't let the scare-mongering get you down

I think my goose might be cooked. :sarcasm: I'm not worried. :D

but it's better than smoking, lol.

:)

Tis my one addiction! (Well- other than DU!)

As Abbie Hoffman once said,"Well it won't kill you".

But eventually it does in combination with other such stuff.

...are much worse for you than the real thing. Unless you're diabetic, of course, and absolutely have to avoid sugar. But any time you have a choice between putting a chemical contraption in your body (fake butter comes to mind also - i.e. margerine), vs. the natural product, go with nature. She's known best for millions of years.

the same cane used to manufacture splenda is used to manufacture sugar, the very same cane at the very same refinery

it is NOT a natural product

It tastes like you're drinking a cleaning product, if you understand what I'm saying.

I prefer Stevia.

I can't stand the taste of regular sugar anymore (I cut most of it out my diet a couple of years ago), but I don't usually use either.