PDA

View Full Version : I'm giving Splenda up GAH



MagnaSephiroth
03-01-2007, 05:03 PM
Being bored as usual I looked up the negative effects of Splenda, and getting scared like I always do, I reflected on how much Splenda I eat/drink. So, this is going to be tough, but I'm going to have to eat my Oatmeal...plain (cringe) Or at least until I can find a bottle or packets of Stevia.

NewTriathlete
03-01-2007, 05:36 PM
Just making sure I understand this correctly....

You're giving up on Splenda, a sweetner approved by the FDA, who's only valid critisism I've seen is that there as never been a long term study on it, because of some paranoid tendency. Instead, you're looking for Stevia, a sweetner banned by the FDA in 1991.

Just making sure I understood correctly :)

Morox
03-01-2007, 06:10 PM
People on here think choosing diet soda over regular makes such a big difference health-wise. Diet is probably worse for you...

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
03-01-2007, 06:10 PM
Dude...stick with Splenda.

IronKidd
03-01-2007, 06:16 PM
Diet is probably worse for you...How? I always thought 0 sugar and aspertame was better than the huge amounts of sugar in normal soda.

Optimum08
03-01-2007, 07:04 PM
People on here think choosing diet soda over regular makes such a big difference health-wise. Diet is probably worse for you...

evidence?

NewTriathlete
03-01-2007, 07:24 PM
Teh Internetz sed so!

RedSpikeyThing
03-01-2007, 08:03 PM
evidence?

IMO it's similar to the butter vs. margarine debate. Sure butter is full of calories and fat, but margarine is chalk full of chemicals.

NewTriathlete
03-01-2007, 08:05 PM
In the Butter vs. Margarine debate the issue isn't chemicals, its that margarine is choke full of Trans-fatty acids, proven to be terrible for you and to make you gain weight.

Holto
03-01-2007, 08:05 PM
Stevia comes from a tree IIRC. Much the same as butter VS margarine, one is natural, one is synthetic. Nature generally wins when it comes to health.

Morox
03-01-2007, 10:58 PM
How? I always thought 0 sugar and aspertame was better than the huge amounts of sugar in normal soda.

Depends on how you view aspartame. If you want to think of it as something that will not bring up any health issues, that's fine. Or if you follow studies, they are looking into connections between aspartame and diseases like brain tumors, brain lesions, and lymphoma.

Besides, aspartame tastes like complete ass.

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
03-01-2007, 11:00 PM
From what I've read recently, those side effects have been shot down.



Besides, aspartame tastes like complete ass.That is certainly true, lol.

FireRescue
03-02-2007, 08:19 AM
You're giving up on Splenda, a sweetner approved by the FDA,

Not speaking about Splenda or any product in particular, but I do not think the approval itself warrants that it is necessarily a safe product to use/consume. JMHO

djreef
03-02-2007, 10:01 AM
Just put honey in your oatmeal. Cripe if it's good enough for baby bees, hell it's good enough for me.

DJ

pbaddict
03-02-2007, 10:41 AM
Stevia comes from a tree IIRC. Much the same as butter VS margarine, one is natural, one is synthetic. Nature generally wins when it comes to health.

I've been using stevia for years now. Sure, it may taste a little crappy at first (it can be bitter if you use too much), but you get used to it. Try it and see if you like it.

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
03-02-2007, 12:07 PM
Stevia hasn't been approved by the FDA and its side effects are widely unknown at this point in time. Using it is a risk. More studies need to be done before we can know.

Alex.V
03-02-2007, 12:23 PM
From what I've read recently, those side effects have been shot down.




Completely, repeatedly, and utterly shot down.

I really do wish people would stop posting that crap.


And it's "CHOCK" full. Not chalk. Not choke.

Eat your sucraose and aspartame. Everything is made of chemicals. You'd think this was obvious, but people seem to think it a bad word. It's just that some chemicals are synthesized by enzymes in various organisms, others are made in labs. In both cases there are plenty that will kill you and plenty that won't.

I mean, honestly.

pbaddict
03-02-2007, 12:45 PM
Stevia hasn't been approved by the FDA and its side effects are widely unknown at this point in time. Using it is a risk. More studies need to be done before we can know.

Risk of what? I'm genuinely curious.

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
03-02-2007, 12:49 PM
That's the point. There isn't enough research to declare if there are any risks at all. The lack of research/studies makes using it a risk.

Holto
03-02-2007, 01:19 PM
That's the point. There isn't enough research to declare if there are any risks at all. The lack of research/studies makes using it a risk.

Then that could be said of any natural food.

Are there studies that show oatmeal is safe? I could go on, but I'm sure you get my point. What is the concern over a completely natural substance?

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
03-02-2007, 01:40 PM
I didn't say there was a concern. I'm just saying there's not much research on it, as opposed to Aspartame, which has studies up the arse.

And why wouldn't there be studies on food? How would we know anything about them? (vitamins, minerals, phytochemicals, effects on the body, etc...) If there wasn't any research on food, we wouldn't have nutrition labels or any information for that matter. =\ So no, I don't think I'm quite getting you because there is research on food. Yes, stevia is derived form a natural herb. And cocaine comes from coca leaves, which is also natural.

Alex.V
03-02-2007, 02:37 PM
Are there studies that show oatmeal is safe? I could go on, but I'm sure you get my point. What is the concern over a completely natural substance?


1) The chemical composition of the various compounds in oatmeal are known

2) These chemicals are KNOWN to be safe, certainly in the doses indicated.

3) The FDA, CDC, and other government bodies do regular testing of various supermarket products, meats, produce, etc. and determine the amounts of various toxins and unknown compounds in these foods. So any known toxins are screened for concentrations, and any unknown or unexpected chemicals (including those of "natural" origin, i.e. stevia) are either tested before the food is declared contaminant free, or allowed through because there isn't sufficient evidence to declare them unsafe.

Stevia is one of these latter compounds, which is neither marketed as a supplement (which requires FDA oversight), nor proven unsafe (which would require significant independent testing.) This means that Stevia escapes on a loophole.

Do I believe it to be dangerous? Not remotely. But this is why you can't compare oatmeal to stevia. Or the vast majority of other foods, for that matter.

MagnaSephiroth
03-02-2007, 04:48 PM
Stevia has been used in Japan for over 30 years, and there have been no reports of it causing any abnormalties in them.
It is also approved as a SUPPLEMENT here in the united states, but not yet as an edible source. However again, many asian people here grow their own Stevia plants and eat them, after coming over from countries that use it.

Splenda is in everything. And on top of it, I eat about 20-30g of it in gradulated form poured into my oatmeal everyday. Some occasions, such as bulking, up to 50g. I don't see how this can be good for me, that is why I'm knocking off this extra 20-30g.

RedSpikeyThing
03-02-2007, 05:28 PM
Splenda is in everything. And on top of it, I eat about 20-30g of it in gradulated form poured into my oatmeal everyday. Some occasions, such as bulking, up to 50g.

You eat half a box of Splenda when you're bulking? I think you need to get your sweet tooth looked at

Holto
03-02-2007, 10:35 PM
1) The chemical composition of the various compounds in oatmeal are known

2) These chemicals are KNOWN to be safe, certainly in the doses indicated.

3) The FDA, CDC, and other government bodies do regular testing of various supermarket products, meats, produce, etc. and determine the amounts of various toxins and unknown compounds in these foods. So any known toxins are screened for concentrations, and any unknown or unexpected chemicals (including those of "natural" origin, i.e. stevia) are either tested before the food is declared contaminant free, or allowed through because there isn't sufficient evidence to declare them unsafe.

Stevia is one of these latter compounds, which is neither marketed as a supplement (which requires FDA oversight), nor proven unsafe (which would require significant independent testing.) This means that Stevia escapes on a loophole.

Do I believe it to be dangerous? Not remotely. But this is why you can't compare oatmeal to stevia. Or the vast majority of other foods, for that matter.

Interesting, and good to know. It sounded to me like Scarz was referring to clinical studies conducted to show it was safe. To that I questioned the existence of such studies on most of what you would find in the grocery store.

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
03-02-2007, 11:47 PM
I meant normal stuff, Holto. :)

MagnaSephiroth
03-03-2007, 12:00 AM
You eat half a box of Splenda when you're bulking? I think you need to get your sweet tooth looked at

I was exagerating, and buying bags are a lot cheaper then boxes.

gumbo11103
03-03-2007, 11:10 AM
Umm, call me stupid but what is wrong with regular sugar. Is a few teaspoons gonna make that much difference?

RedSpikeyThing
03-03-2007, 11:39 AM
Umm, call me stupid but what is wrong with regular sugar. Is a few teaspoons gonna make that much difference?

It can make a big difference if you have a few teaspoons all the time. For example a couple of teaspoons and your oatmeal, then in your shake and in your coffee could go a long way.

Alex.V
03-03-2007, 11:55 AM
It is also approved as a SUPPLEMENT here in the united states.

I stand corrected, I didn't know that.



I eat about 20-30g of it in gradulated form poured into my oatmeal everyday. Some occasions, such as bulking, up to 50g.

Interesting. I'm sure some of you know this, but a packet of splenda actually is 95% maltodextrin to add bulk. Same with aspartame. Sucralose is considered about 600 times sweeter than sugar, which essentially (obviously) means that 1mg of sucralose will provide a sweetening effect similar to 600mg of sugar. A packet of Splenda is supposed to be as sweet as two packets of sugar, and each packet of sugar should contain 4 grams. So a packet of Splenda should therefore be the equivalent of 8 grams of sugar.

This means a packet of Splenda contains about 13.3mg of sucralose, which would obviously be so little that it would end up sticking to the side of the packet. Therefore, the other 840mg or so is maltodextrin. (interesting fact... if the amount of any macronutrient per serving is less than 1 gram, it can be considered 0. A packet of Splenda or Equal is about 850-900 grams by weight, the majority of which is maltodextrin for bulk. Maltodextrin is 4 calories per gram, but since there's just less than a gram, they can advertise "0 calories per packet", even though each one has about 3. Still less than 16 per packet of sugar.

The same ratio tends to apply to the Splenda spoonful crap, though that stuff tends to essentially be sucralose and maltodextrin/dextrose "puffs",so that a teaspoon is actually about half a gram of solid. Again, getting around the 1 gram per serving rule.

So you'd need to take in about 75 packets of Splenda at once to even get a gram of Sucralose (it's been tested safe in long term studies with amounts much higher than that per kg of subject).

Even if you say you're exaggerating, I still think 1,880 packets of Splenda is a bit much for one's morning oatmeal.

gumbo11103
03-03-2007, 12:03 PM
It can make a big difference if you have a few teaspoons all the time. For example a couple of teaspoons and your oatmeal, then in your shake and in your coffee could go a long way.

I don't know? I eat sugar in my oatmeal over my ceral, in my coffee,power bars, chocolate etc.. My body fat stays at 10%. Has been for the last 5 years. I'm not going to deny to much sugar is bad for you but we're talking about a guy who simply wants to give up splenda in one stinkin bowl of oatmeal a day. I say drop 4 teaspoons of sugar in that oatmeal from now on. Report back in 6 weeks, I'm willing to bet you don't gain an ounce of fat.

Alex.V
03-03-2007, 03:51 PM
I dunno man, 10% is pretty high.

gumbo11103
03-03-2007, 04:57 PM
I dunno man, 10% is pretty high.

Yeah by bodybuilders standards I guess your right. I'm new to lifting. I thought 10% wasn't all that bad, I got abs showing. Whats a common BF % amongst bodybuilders? Just my observation, most of the guys that are in my gym though they are huge, also have loads of fat. I can't imagine these guys obsessing over splenda.

Alex.V
03-03-2007, 08:10 PM
I was joking. :)

RedSpikeyThing
03-04-2007, 09:18 AM
I don't know? I eat sugar in my oatmeal over my ceral, in my coffee,power bars, chocolate etc.. My body fat stays at 10%. Has been for the last 5 years. I'm not going to deny to much sugar is bad for you but we're talking about a guy who simply wants to give up splenda in one stinkin bowl of oatmeal a day. I say drop 4 teaspoons of sugar in that oatmeal from now on. Report back in 6 weeks, I'm willing to bet you don't gain an ounce of fat.

That's very true. I guess I should have clarified by saying I mean people who don't track their diet. For example, 3 cups of coffee x 2 tsp + oatmeal/cereal x 2 tsp + 2 cookies/sweets x 2-3tsps and you would be at about 1/4 cup of sugar. Add in some pop and it would be a substantial amount.

But if all you eat is oatmeal with a bit of sugar, then go for it.

ArchAngel777
03-05-2007, 12:23 PM
Seems rather foolish to give up splenda for reasons the OP stated. Plain oatmeal? I suppose it might taste good if the only thing you have eaten the past year was... Shat.

beatlesfreak
03-05-2007, 05:27 PM
Completely, repeatedly, and utterly shot down.

I really do wish people would stop posting that crap.

Amen.


Everything is made of chemicals. You'd think this was obvious, but people seem to think it a bad word. It's just that some chemicals are synthesized by enzymes in various organisms, others are made in labs. In both cases there are plenty that will kill you and plenty that won't.



Well said.

The first rule of toxicology: There are no poisonous substances, only poisonous doses.

Too much of anything can be bad. Even water. Splenda and Aspertame have done far more good in the world than harm. In fact, there's no evidence, beyond mere internet rumors, that they've ever done any harm at all to anyone, anywhere.

There's mercury in your fish, dioxin in your grains, lead in your vegetables, hormones in your milk, nitrates in your potatoes, and cianide in your apples and yet none of these things are considered dangeorus by the paranoid anti-Nutra Sweet crowd.

This is such a non-issue. :scratch:

[Typing slow right now because I have a giant cup of Diet Coke with Splenda in one hand.]

Bupp
03-05-2007, 07:24 PM
Belial,

Where does all this sugar wisdom come from?

Slim Schaedle
03-05-2007, 07:29 PM
I stand corrected, I didn't know that

:omg:


Hell froze

Slim Schaedle
03-05-2007, 07:32 PM
Belial,

Where does all this sugar wisdom come from?

When you are sweet, you know it.