69 replies to this topic

[darauch]

Dukenukem,

All the studies that I have seen suggest splenda is quite safe. I'd be interested in knowing of studies that suggest something different. Thanks.

[icyT]

I have read about microwaving being unhealthy in several books, but it would take some work to find out which ones -- I've read over 200 health/longevity/nutrition books in the last few years.  ;-)

The key thing is that it damages protein, and you do not want to consume damaged protein.  Another problem is that if you cook in a plastic container, it will leech into the food in a microwave oven.  It also destroys phytochemicals.

I never use one, and I've not been inconvenienced in the least.

Here's the main question: does microwaving do anything worse than cooking, steaming, or frying it?

Some people like their food heated, so if microwaving is bad only because raw food is good, that's not the best way to explain it.

[jaydfox]

Splenda is a chemical cousin of DDT. Stay far far away.

Heh, I don't know about the DDT thing, but I do know that Splenda is a chemical cousin of sugar (at least structurally, even though not by chemical reactivity standards).

[Mind]

Since Monsanto owns Sweet N Low and Nutrasweet, it was in their best interest to have saccharine shown as dangerous in the 70's in that famous mouse study that used ridiculously high mega-doses of saccharine. (And gee, it caused cancer...imagine that!) You see, the patent on saccharine had run out decades ago, and with Nutrasweet (aspartame) coming out (with a shiny 17 year patent), it would only help if saccharine lost favor -- thus pushing business toward an alternate sweetener in which Monsanto controlled 100% (where as with saccharine any could make it after the patent expired).

I am not going to totally stick up for aspartame here (I try to avoid it...but I don't think it is poison), but I have to mention methods used in determining saccharine's and aspartame's safety. The latest study (from Italy) with respect to aspartame and cancer showed an increased incidence of cancer in lab mice that were fed the equivalent of 5 TWENTY OUNCE BOTTLES OF DIET SODA PER DAY for the equivalent of 54 HUMAN YEARS!! I realize this doesn't rise to the ridiculousness of the 70's saccharine study but it is fairly extreme. It certainly makes aspartame seem like a very very weak carcinogen. Again, I don't use aspartame, but neither do I avoid it like the plague. I usually just use real sugar in the few drinks I feel the need to sweeten.

Also, back to the topic. Donahue, Oprah, or one of the talk show hosts had an overwieght person on their show once a few years back. Actually it was someone who overcame extreme obesity. The woman was several hundred pounds. She never left her house. Her husband brought her food and she mostly watched TV all day. She needed help getting out of bed, because she was so heavy. When someone finally called a doctor to get her help, they had to cut a hole in the wall of her house in order to get her out. She eventually set the world record for most weight lost by one person. She went from something like 800 down to 200. Anyway, the point of the story is that she always drank diet soda. She convinced herself (maybe commercials did) that as long as she drank diet soda, she could eat as much as she wanted, or at least it balanced out her over-eating. Wrong!

[syr_]

Dosage is the key, but tolerance of very low doses (compared to that) in humans is a reality if you look at anectodal experiences (strange headaches no one?)
That aspartame is harmful for our health, there are enough proofs now.

Instead there is only alot of quackery around sucralose...

[opales]

Dosage is the key, but tolerance of very low doses (compared to that) in humans is a reality if you look at anectodal experiences (strange headaches no one?)
That aspartame is harmful for our health, there are enough proofs now.

Evidence please?

[opales]

Oh dear.. I drink at least one diet coke a day.. And I chew artificially sweetened gum.. I can ditch the diet coke but what about the gum? (chewing gum actually has nootropic effects believe it or not - and it also stops me from wanting to eat)

The artificial sweeteners are some of the most researched substances in human history, safety record being very good. Stevia is heralded as the new savior by the conspiracy theorists, who are eager to point that it is approved in Japan, but however forget to mention that it is NOT approved (as food additive) by almost any other industrial country in the world (because LACK of safety studies).

Even the author of the study that is the topic of this thread specifically pointed out that it was not likely that the diet soda per se caused the observed weight gain.

Edited by opales, 21 March 2006 - 04:08 PM.

[Michael]

All:

This, like all human studies of which I'm aaware that link artificial sweetener consumption with weight gain, was an observatioinal study, not a controlled trial. They tracked people's soda consumption and weights over time, and found that people who were drinking diet sodas were more likely to be at risk of weight gain. But there's a fairly obvious reason why this might be so, as the article says:

Diet Soda No Smoking Gun
Fowler is quick to note that a study of this kind does not prove that diet soda causes obesity. More likely, she says, it shows that something linked to diet soda drinking is also linked to obesity.

"One possible part of the explanation is that people who see they are beginning to gain weight may be more likely to switch from regular to diet soda," Fowler suggests. "But despite their switching, their weight may continue to grow for other reasons. So diet soft-drink use is a marker for overweight and obesity."

... "A lot of people say, 'I am drinking a diet soft drink because that is better for me. But ... You can't go into a fast-food restaurant and say, 'Oh, it's OK because I had diet soda.' If you don't do anything else but switch to a diet soft drink, you are not going to lose weight" [says  Leslie Bonci, MPH, RD,  director of sports nutrition at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center] ...

"People think they can just fool the body. But maybe the body isn't fooled," she says. "If you are not giving your body those calories you promised it, maybe your body will retaliate by wanting more calories. Some soft drink studies do suggest that diet drinks stimulate appetite."

By contrast, there are a fair number of controlled trials where they actually feed people artificially vs. calorically-sweetened foods or beverages, and they almost uniformly show that the replacement causes weight loss. Most of these have been rightly criticised for being very short-term and performed under artificial conditions, but a new study (1) overcomes all of these weaknesses and shows rather predictably that replacing 120 Calorie/cup soda with a Calorie/cup soda leads to weight loss (or in this case, less weight gain), although the effect is not dramatic -- probably for the setpoint reasons given above:

We randomly assigned 103 adolescents aged 13 to 18 years who regularly consumed SSBs [sugar-sweetened beverages] to intervention and control groups. The intervention, 25 weeks in duration, relied largely on home deliveries of noncaloric beverages to displace SSBs ...

Consumption of SSBs decreased by 82% in the intervention group and did not change in the control group. Change in BMI, adjusted for gender and age, was 0.07 ... kg/m2 ... for the intervention group and 0.21 ... for the control group. The net difference, -0.14 ... kg/m2, was not significant overall. However, baseline BMI was a significant effect modifier. Among the subjects in the upper baseline-BMI tertile, BMI change differed significantly between the intervention (-0.63 ... kg/m2) and control (+0.12 ... kg/m2) groups, a net effect of -0.75 +/- 0.34 kg/m2. The interaction between weight change and baseline BMI was not attributable to baseline consumption of SSBs.

Why would anyone on the life extention forum drink diet soda?

Because they like the taste and don't want the excess Calories (especially in the form of sugar). The dangers of artificial sweeteners are either constrained to a small fraction of the population (aspartame) or simiply do not appear to exist outside of fear of the unknown.

Plenty of evidence for the health hazards of both sugar and of stevia, by contrast.

-Michael


1. Ebbeling CB, Feldman HA, Osganian SK, Chomitz VR, Ellenbogen SJ, Ludwig DS.
Effects of decreasing sugar-sweetened beverage consumption on body weight in
adolescents: a randomized, controlled pilot study.
Pediatrics. 2006 Mar;117(3):673-80.
PMID: 16510646 [PubMed - in process]

[FunkOdyssey]

This site discusses some potential issues with stevia:

http://www.uspharmac...&article_id=634

...These findings on the reproductive system in male rats were confirmed in another study.32 The chronic administration (60 days) of Stevia rebaudiana resulted in a decrease in the plasma testosterone level and in the epididymal sperm concentration in male rats.33 The author concluded that this effect was consistent with the belief that administration of Stevia extracts may produce infertility in males.33 It appears at this time that the issue of infertility following the administration of Stevia products remains controversial.

Human Studies

Despite centuries of use, there is still a lack of comprehensive clinical studies on Stevia as a supplement. In normal human volunteers, the effect of administering extracts of Stevia rebaudiana on glucose tolerance tests was investigated. Subjects were given aqueous extracts from 5 grams of leaves every six hours for three days. A glucose tolerance test was performed before and after administration of the extracts. The results showed that treatment with Stevia resulted in an increase in glucose tolerance and a decrease in plasma glucose concentrations.34 Moreover, it was shown recently that both steviol and stevioside can produce a direct effect on beta cells in the pancreas to release insulin.5 The authors concluded that this plant may have a potential use in the management of type 2 diabetes.5

Cariogenic and Mutagenic Effects

Since Stevia products are used as sugar substitutes by many populations, a study was conducted to test whether stevioside and rebaudioside A may have the potential of causing dental caries from prolonged use. Rats were fed a diet containing 0.5% stevioside or 0.5% rebaudioside A for five weeks. Neither compound showed a potential of increasing the risk of developing dental caries.35

Several researchers investigated the risk of mutagenicity. In two studies,18,30 steviol produced a dose-related positive mutagenic effect in some tests. In the same study, stevioside was found to be devoid of this effect. Other reports indicated lack of mutagenicity of both compounds.6,36 Because of these contradictory reports, the FDA is still cautious in introducing this herb as a sugar substitute until its safety is completely established.

Reduction of testosterone, increased insulin secretion, and mutagenicity are possible effects of stevia (according to research cited in this article).

[DukeNukem]

http://www.ehponline.../8711/8711.html

Highlights from study:

[Aspartame] is found in > 6,000 products, including carbonated and powdered soft drinks, hot chocolate, chewing gum, candy, desserts, yogurt, tabletop sweeteners, and some pharmaceutical products, such as vitamins and sugar-free cough drops, and is estimated by the Aspartame Information Center (2005) to be consumed by > 200 million people worldwide...Our study shows that [Aspartame] is a multipotential carcinogenic compound whose carcinogenic effects are evident even at a daily dose of 20 mg/kg bw, much less than the current ADI for humans in Europe (40 mg/kg bw) and in the United States (50 mg/kg bw)...The results of carcinogenicity bioassays in rodents are consistent predictors of human cancer risks (Huff 1999; Rall 1995; Tomatis et al. 1989). The results of our study therefore call for an urgent reexamination of the present guidelines on the use and consumption of [Aspartame].

A key way to avoid cancers and diseases later in life is too avoid the slow-brewing causes earlier in life, and aspartame is unquestionably on the list of toxins that should be avoided. It's unfortunate that people with Sugar Overload Syndrome (diabetes) almost always turn to diet sodas and artificially sweetened foods to satisfy their cravings (with their doctor's blessing), thus jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire.

Anyone who believes that using aspartame or sucralose (Splenda) as a relatively safe and sane decision for longer term health, is clearly unreliable as a source.

[opales]

http://www.ehponline.../8711/8711.html

Highlights from study:

A key way to avoid cancers and diseases later in life is too avoid the slow-brewing causes earlier in life, and aspartame is unquestionably on the list of toxins that should be avoided.  It's unfortunate that people with Sugar Overload Syndrome (diabetes) almost always turn to diet sodas and artificially sweetened foods to satisfy their cravings (with their doctor's blessing), thus jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire.

Anyone who believes that using aspartame or sucralose (Splenda) as a relatively safe and sane decision for longer term health, is clearly unreliable as a source.

How do you respond to the criticism presented here on that specific study (couple of posts):

http://www.imminst.o...=0

First and foremost, howcome is it that the very rats treated with high doses of aspartame that were purported to have higher cancer rates actually lived LONGER than the controls? Or that controls had for some odd reason a significantly lowered cancer risk on the cancers studied compared to historical controls? It would not have something to do with the fact that in fact controls died of other reasons (mammary cancers?) earlier on which paradoxically reduced the incidence of lymphomas and leukaemias, would it?

Edit: fixed your link for you.

Edited by jaydfox, 21 March 2006 - 08:23 PM.

[xanadu]

Duke is right. Aspartame and possibly splenda are harmful substances. Believe what you want but it's a fact that artificial sweeteners do not cause weight loss, they cause a gain. Part of the reason is that they induce sugar cravings much as eating ordinary sugar will do. Have you ever been hungry and eaten some artificially sweetened food like soda or other crap and afterwards you werent hungry any more? Of course not, same as eating a candy bar, it just makes you more hungry. I can't be bothered to find a study on that but it's something you can test for yourself.

[jaydfox]

Believe what you want but it's a fact that artificial sweeteners do not cause weight loss, they cause a gain.

That's not a fact. Calling it so with such an air of authority still doesn't make it fact.

What one could reasonably call a fact is that drinking diet sodas is correlated with weight gain. Correlation and causation are two very different things.

Edit: formatting, grammar.

[jaydfox]

Have you ever been hungry and eaten some artificially sweetened food like soda or other crap and afterwards you werent hungry any more?

Actually, yes, diet soda leaves me sated much better than regular soda, especially after a meal. Not sure why, but it's an observation I've made over the years, one that I've been acutely aware of the past six months or so.

[biknut]

I used to be a big soda addict, but I've never been able to handle the taste of diet sodas. Now I try to never drink sodas.

I don't think diet soda is a cause of weight gain directly, but it's been my observation that people that drink them seem to think that because they cut out some calories now they can eat more.

I have a friend that eats every kind of fatty food you can think of, and he always drinks diet sodas. I ask him one day what's the point of drinking diet soda when you're eating all that fatty food. He replied that he thought it was a good way to cut down on calories, every little bit helps?????

[xanadu]

"Actually, yes, diet soda leaves me sated much better than regular soda, especially after a meal."

jaydfox, I believe you are fooling yourself. I know I've never been sated by any sugar food including soda though I did get to the point I was full. Back when I used to eat the junk, I don't anymore. Eat what you want, no one is going to convince you anyway.

[Shepard]

I can't be bothered to find a study on that but it's something you can test for yourself.

If my pimp hand was strong enough to reach through the internet, you'd be picking up teeth. How can you pull that shit after that long argument you made in the lipoic acid thread? You're a moron.

[jaydfox]

It'd take a 20-oz. bottle of soda to equal the calories in a typical candy bar, yet many people seem to think that drinking a 12 oz. can of diet soda and eating a candy bar is as good or better than drinking a 12 oz. can of regular soda, in terms of calories. People have no comprehension of how calorie dense candy bars are.

Of course, depending on the type of candy bar (e.g., a Snickers), there's just enough "nutrition" (variety of macronutrients, chocolate, nuts, etc.) in it to be better, calorie for calorie, than a soda, especially considering the acid in sodas.

Note: On the other hand, a Snickers has the same amount of calories as two typical cans of regular soda! So it'd take two diet sodas (in place of regular) just to break even.

[DukeNukem]

howcome is it that the very rats treated with high doses of aspartame that were purported to have higher cancer rates actually lived LONGER than the controls?

I have no answer, but until research verifies positive longevity gains from these chemicals, I think the safe bet is to not use them. It's just common sense.

Do people really, really need sodas anyway? Why pay for these soda company execs to drive around in their luxury cars at the potential expense of your health?! Do you think they give even second's thought to anyone's health -- they're too busy laughing all the way to the bank, or some exotic tropical resort. Why encourage corporations to take your health for granted?!

The mind boggles.

Sodas are just not a necessity, and neither is aspartame or sucralose. The negative evidence for both of these is strong, and mounting higher. Clearly, the smart play is to just not use these substances. Is that just too hard for people?

[jaydfox]

The negative evidence for both of these is strong, and mounting higher. Clearly, the smart play is to just not use these substances.

From the evidence I've seen, specifically regarding weight gain correlated with artificial sweeteners, it seems to me that the problem is for the uneducated, who don't realize that aspartame, et al. are screwing with their innate calorie sensing systems (both conscious and subconscious), and hence affecting their appetites.

Leaving aside the cancer issue, which has minimal support IMHO, the big issue is appetite control. For the educated person who is made aware of the affects on appetite (and the underlying physiological reasons for those affects, insofar as we understand them), I think there is a place for artificial sweeteners.

A random place that comes to mind is protein shakes. There are times when I want a protein shake, sans carbs. I don't know about any of you, but raw whey protein doesn't really go down easy. Protein powders sweetened with sucralose are a big market for this reason. (Another reason is that sugar is heavy, so paying for 20g sugar to go with your 20g protein just adds a dent to the pocketbook.)

[DukeNukem]

Jay, candy bars like Snicker's are packed full of high-fructose corn syrup and both trans- and hydrogenated-fats. Those things are anti-health time bombs. And they have no redeeming value, even if all you're looking for is an energy surge (as their TV commercial try to make them appear valuable for).

Sodas, even the diet kind, still have phosphoric acid, an industrial grade acid used in most high-volume commercial sodas as a flavor enhancer, but has several negative health consequences. If you REALLY must have a soda, seek out www.Steaz.com. I'll let my kids have one of these a week, as a special treat. Real sugar cane sugar (far less evil that fructose corn syrup), and no unnecessary ingredients like phosphoric acid.

[Shepard]

Jay, candy bars like Snicker's are packed full of high-fructose corn syrup and both trans- and hydrogenated-fats.  Those things are anti-health time bombs.  And they have no redeeming value, even if all you're looking for is an energy surge (as their TV commercial try to make them appear valuable for).

Snicker's might not have physiological value, but they definately have psychological value in the right circumstances.

[jaydfox]

Actually, I surreptitiously picked Snickers for a very precise reason: it's a virtual saint among the popular candy bar brands.

The trans- and hydrogenated fats come from partially hydrogenated soybean oil, which is far enough down on the ingredient list that I'd be terribly surprised if there was 0.25g of trans fat, let alone 0.5g trans fat (enough to round up to 1g). Apparently they reformulated a couple years back so they can claim 0g trans fat on the wrappers (do they list it yet on the wrappers?).

Of the 14g total fat, the following ingredients are all present in higher quantities (except perhaps the *'ed) than the partially hydrogenated soybean oil:
cocoa butter* (under milk chocolate)
milk fat* (under milk chocolate)
peanuts
butter
milkfat

At a glance, I can't see there being more than 2g soybean oil, and probably only a gram, if that. Degree of hydrogenation varies from product to product, but it's not unheard of these days for hydrogenated oils to only contain 10%-20% hydrogenated oils. So as I said, I'd be quite surprised if there were 0.5g. Now weigh that against the health effects of phosphoric and carbonic acid.

At any rate, in Snickers you've got the chocolate, the peanuts, etc. As for high fructose corn syrup, that's what's in most sodas, so it's a non-issue for comparison purposes.

[jaydfox]

I should point out that I'm not saying Snickers are healthy per se, just "healthier", relatively speaking, than your typical two cans of regular soda.

[DukeNukem]

I keep a few of these Herb-All bars in my car so that I can crush any hunger urges with a reasonably healthy hammer:
http://www.komalherb...om/herball.html

[xanadu]

Jaydfox, you may be correct about that statement. However, snickers are garbage all the same.

" I should point out that I'm not saying Snickers are healthy per se, just "healthier", relatively speaking, than your typical two cans of regular soda."

shepard, I point out that it's something that can be tested by the people themselves and you explode in rage and make a little threat. It's easy to see who the moron is

[jaydfox]

However, snickers are garbage all the same.

That statement could be applied to 90% of what Americans eat. Relativism has its place in promoting better alternatives to the public. If you had a choice between Oreos (the original recipe) and a similar number of calories from Snickers, you'd be wise to choose the Snickers (and yes, you'd be wise to choose neither, but that wasn't an option I gave).

[scud]

Jaydfox- Let me see if I understand you. Aspertame is only toxic to the uneducated? I find it incredible that anyone interested in longevity would drink soda, much less diet soda, much less advocate drinking soda. There is such a thing as being educated beyond ones natural intelligence level. No flame intended........but WTF

[Shepard]

His posts were regarding caloric intake, not the controversial health aspects of aspartame.