| Author |
Message |
|
|
 |
Tue Mar 06, 2007 11:53 pm  |
Another vote for Xylitol, here. Or agave nectar.
Splenda alters my mood. Turrible depression. Aspartame gives me headaches. Chemicals, you know. Stevia tastes bitter to me.
Sugar is really not too bad -- in moderation. 14 calories a teaspoon.
The problem with the fake sweetners is they are 200-600 times sweeter than sugar. After becoming accustomed to them, anything made with real sugar does not taste sweet anymore.
It's all a matter of degree. And you can defintely train your taste buds to require less sweetness. |
_________________
tenderlovingwork.com, astonishing handmade gifts |
|
|
|
|
Wed Mar 07, 2007 6:06 am |
I agree that you can train yourself to like things less sweet. I use mostly Splenda and erythritol. Xylitol is also good but it spikes my blood sugar some. The problem with sucrose is that we are in the midst of a diabetes epidemic. I have Syndrome X (a prediabetic condition linked to blood pressure). Although heart disease rates have been more or less constant the past decade and a half have seen an enormous increase in Type II diabetes, 7% of Americans have it and 40% of Americans over 40 have prediabetes or reduced insulin sensitivity.
In the past 20 years death related to diabetes has increased 30%!! It also severely compromises quality of life for older people. It is mostly preventable by not consuming refined carbohydrates. It is NOT related to fat consumption but it is correlated to being overweight. (for a while people thought it was related to fat consumption simply because that can correlate with weight. When data is corrected for that it is weight and simple carbs not fat. In fact good fat consumption (Omega 3s like fish and Omega 9s like olive oil are ANTI correlated with diabetes).
Anyway sugar is definately NOT good for you.Splenda is likely not good for you but it substitutes for something bad. There are absolutely no studies showing bad side effects search MEDLINE yourself. |
|
|
|
|
|
Wed Mar 07, 2007 6:41 am |
| sigma wrote: |
I learned to drink coffee without sugar.
If espresso - then I add just a tiny bit.
I would not use any artificial substitute, I do not believe they are good for one's health.
For a diabetic I would suggest Stevia, since it is a more natural product.
HTH,
Lucy. |
Lucy, I agree. We limit sugar consumption in our home, but never use substitutes. I don't buy sugar-free prepackaged items because of artificial sweeteners that are slipped in there. No diet sodas either. We just consume regular sugar reasonably. I believe in the basics with regard to food; the more simple, the better. I personally think that people in general eat too many pre-packaged foods that are loaded with preservatives and additives, so I try to limit the overload whenever possible.
Tina |
|
|
|
|
|
Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:27 am |
I think the jury is still out on Splenda as it is a relatively new sweetener. I know bakers are thrilled w/ it b/c it browns and caramelizes just like sugar. And, yes, it is derived from sugar. I prefer to use splenda sweetened items (I have a HUGE sweet tooth so I' never gonna be able to kick the habit completely  ) versus aspartame/saccharin.
BTW, I use stevia also but didn't care for the licorice taste much. When I was at Whole Foods a couple of wks ago, they had bottled stevia in maybe six different flavors. Some I recall are lemon, valencia orange (I got for teas), grape, english toffee (I got for cereal - kinda vanilla tasting), and can't remember the rest. HTH  |
|
|
|
|
|
Wed Mar 07, 2007 2:41 pm |
Xylitol or Stevia (liquid) is my choice - chemicals like chlorine (splenda) no thanks. But they do have great marketing.
Most chemicals produced in the laboratory using chlorine and carbon (such as sucrose) are unknown to nature. Manmade chlorine resists normal breakdown and can deposit in both the environment and in body fat. Synthetic chlorine and its byproducts are very slow to decompose. In some cases, it may take years or decades to completely break down. Some chlorine compounds actually become more toxic once unleashed in the environment.
Natural chlorine is not the same as Splenda’s man-made chlorine. With synthetic versions of chlorine, you must be cautious because it is impossible to predict all potential complications on human health. Natural chlorine found in foods will not accumulate in body fat, is not toxic, and it breaks down easier in the body.
Chlorine found in minute amounts in nature helps your liver cleanse, while there are warnings that synthetic forms of chlorine can burn your internal organs. For example, a tomato is a natural food source of chlorine, but it contains no manmade amounts of chlorine. A tomato contains many more minerals as well and, unlike Splenda, its chlorine molecules have not been replaced with laboratory halogens, as in Splenda. No molecules have been removed to prevent the chlorine in the tomato from digesting (as in sucralose). Along with organic chlorine, a tomato contains sulphur, potassium and sodium in combination, phosphorus, silicon (good for skin)and lycopene.
Most growers supply a regular spray of “de-chlorinated” water on their yields to achieve the perfect moisture conditions for growing.
As with most manmade replicas of natural elements, the body may be tricked into thinking the chemical is natural. Once it attempts to “digest” it and tries to harvest the chemical sweetener for food-nutrients, the manmade chemicals soon turn from totally “harmless” (as the manufacturers claim) to toxic.
We've still not learned that what we create in the lab isn't the same as Mother Nature! |
|
|
|
|
|
Wed Mar 07, 2007 7:45 pm |
The chlorine/Splenda issue is nonsense. It is bound in a way that is not easily broken down. Also the bonds made synthetically are identical to those in some "natural" compounds; some natural compounds and some synthetic are dangerous and some are safe.
Stevia is a natural compound and does worse in rat tests than Splenda both are reasonably "safe" (better than aspartame which also has not had any really bad side effects demonstrated).
On sugar if you are not sensitive to it than moderate input is likely not a problem but probably a full half of Americans are sensitive. Also it is hard to avoid if you eat processed foods. Many moms feed their kids things like Gogurts thinking they are doing something good when in fact the sugar loading is like a full sugar soda. Kids did not used to get Type II diabetes now they are in increasing numbers. Sugar is a cheap filler. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:27 pm |
I think it is a personal choice.
I try to avoid to absorb chlorine in the shower and have a whole house filtration system installed. Same applies to many other items. I would not touch Splenda, but I am just fine drinking my tea or coffee without any sweetener at all (a bit for espresso only).
I know that I have the most unusual reaction to many chemicals, so I try to minimize my total exposure.
Unfortunately all the research covers how dangerous the exposure to the specific substance is, but none did a research on the cumulative exposure - food, drinks, showers, etc.
There is a great book by Shelly Roberts, M.D. called "Detoxify or Die". Very interesting reading.
Just my 5 cents. |
_________________
Early 50s, Skin: combin.,semi-sensitive, fair with occasional breakouts, some old acne scars, freckles, under-eye wrinkles; Redhead with hazel eyes |
|
|
|
| Fri Nov 22, 2024 6:44 am |
If this is your first visit to the EDS Forums please take the time to register. Registration is required for you to post on the forums. Registration will also give you the ability to track messages of interest, send private messages to other users, participate in Gift Certificates draws and enjoy automatic discounts for shopping at our online store. Registration is free and takes just a few seconds to complete.
Click Here to join our community.
If you are already a registered member on the forums, please login to gain full access to the site. |
|
 |
|
|
