Is splenda bad for you? Is pure raw sugar cane better?

Question

I'm trying to cut refined sugar from my diet, but I need something in my tea to sweaten it. I heard splenda is bad for you. What do you think? Would a small amount of pure raw suger cane be better, even though it's higher in calories?

I'm only using two packets a day (or less). Will this really hurt my diet? Honey and raw sugar cane (the brown stuff, not the processed white sugar) are just not sweet enough for me.

Answer 1

What I think....in general I try to avoid any artificially made or processed foods. Just because you never know, maybe in 50 years they find out something troubling about what you ate your whole life long. But - natural foods are around since millions of years so our bodies know them and we know pretty well what to expect.

That being said - I would not touch splenda or any artificial sweetener.
Raw sugar cane - well, yeah. If it has to be I would use that. Better is actually honey.

However - it is well known that sweets, sugar, honey and so on are really hard on your teeth, you can get cavities. And furthermore - too much sugars add a lot of calories.

So what I did successfully - I just left all sweeteners away and it works. How sweet you want a drink is a habit which grows with you during your life. If you drink unsweetened tea for a month it feels normal to you and sweetened stuff feels odd.
The first days are a bit strange but you will adjust quickly.

So - that's my recommendation.

Answer 2

Raw Sugar Vs Refined Sugar

Answer 3

If you are only using a couple of packets a day, I wouldn't get too concerned. However, an excellent alternative is stevia. It is a plant-based sweetener...not artificial...and has no calories. The liquid form is the best, especially for cold drinks so it doesn't clump. But in hot drinks, the powder form is fine and it comes in packets you can carry around with you. Besides buying it online, you can find it in almost all health food stores and WalMart now carries the powder form.

Answer 4

Try honey, its lovely once you get used to the taste it gives the tea. Its also gorgeous in warm milk with cinnamon and nutmeg Yummmmmm
Artificial sweeteners can be bad for you but you would have to be taking very large amounts of them to do this. If you want to use sugar use brown as it is less processed and gives a more sustained energy release rather than the "rush" of white sugar.

Answer 5

yeah all artificial sweetners are bad for you..especially anything with aspertame in it. Stevia IS natural and not bad for you but its taste is kind of bad. Raw sugar cane (that you buy from stores) is also bad for you if its white. Sugar actually isnt WHITE ..and they shouldnt call it raw. Probably the best actually sugar I know for you is called "Turbinado sugar" ... you can also get it in health food stores. Its normal sugar but its natural and unbleached. Its crystally and light brown/goldish in color

Answer 6

splenda is horrible...it never should have been approved by the FDA. it is a chlorocarbon. sugars are normally just made up of carbon and hydrogen atoms. splenda has chlorine atoms replace some of the hydrogen atoms. imagine what would happen if you drank chlorine? most people who eat splenda on a regular basis complain of stomacn cramps, etc...which is no wonder because it is toxic to the organs of your body and can damage them severely even to the point of failure.

Answer 7

Most artificial sweeteners are bad for you. But if you wanted to try something, try Stevia. It is a natural sweetener that you can get in Health Food stores. I hear that it is really strong and you only need a TINY amount!

Answer 8

I believe substitute sugars are worse than real sugars, Pure unrefined sugars are better. But you know what is the healthiest sweetener? HONEY! natural, actually has nutrients, and semi-healthy!

Answer 9

Are you telling me or asking. If asking I would say no but I'm not a specialist on autism.

Answer 10

be very careful of what you read on the Internet about any artificial sweetner.

http://www.foodanddiet.com/NewFiles/splenda.html

the above link jumps to conclusions based on complaints of others and their usage of splenda (suclarose). and as more information became available to them, they updated their site, constantly reminding individuals that the symptoms they're having should be checked out by their physician even though it's clear that the site is stating that splenda is bad for you.

Sucralose was discovered in 1976 by scientists from Tate & Lyle, working with researchers at Queen Elizabeth College (now part of King's College London). It was discovered by Leslie Hough and a young Indian chemist, Shashikant Phadnis. The duo were trying to test chlorinated sugars as chemical intermediates. On a late-summer day, Phadnis was told to test the powder. Phadnis thought that Hough asked him to taste it; so he did. He found the compound to be ridiculously sweet (the final formula was 600 times sweeter than sugar). They worked with Tate & Lyle for a year before settling down on the final formula.

It was first approved for use in Canada (marketed as Splenda) in 1991. Subsequent approvals came in Australia in 1993, in New Zealand in 1996, in the United States in 1998, and in the European Union in 2004. As of 2006, it has been approved in over 60 countries, including Brazil, China, India and Japan.

Tate & Lyle manufactures sucralose at a plant in McIntosh, Alabama, with additional capacity under construction in Jurong, Singapore. It is used in products such as candy, breakfast bars and soft drinks. Sucralose mixed with maltodextrin and dextrose (both made from corn) as a bulking agent is sold internationally by McNeil Nutritionals under the Splenda brand name. In the United States and Canada, this blend is increasingly found in restaurants in yellow packets, in contrast to the pink packets commonly used by saccharin sweeteners and the blue packets used by those containing aspartame though in Canada yellow packets also are associated with the brand name cyclamate sweetner SugarTwin.

Sucralose has been accepted by several national and international food safety regulatory bodies, including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Joint Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization Expert Committee on Food Additives, The European Union's Scientific Committee on Food, Health Protection Branch of Health and Welfare Canada and Food Standards Australia-New Zealand (FSANZ). The acceptable daily intake for sucralose is 9 mg / kg of body weight per day (note that Splenda is mostly maltodextrin).

"In determining the safety of sucralose, FDA reviewed data from more than 110 studies in humans and animals. Many of the studies were designed to identify possible toxic effects including carcinogenic, reproductive and neurological effects. No such effects were found, and FDA's approval is based on the finding that sucralose is safe for human consumption." (FDA Talk Paper T98-16)

Concerns have also been raised about the effect of sucralose on the thymus gland, a gland that is important to the immune system. A report from NICNAS cites two studies on rats, both of which found "a significant decrease in mean thymus weight" at a certain dose. The sucralose dosages which caused the thymus gland effects referenced in the NICNAS report was 3000 mg/kg bw/day for 28 days. For an 80 kg (176 lb) human, this would mean a 28-day intake of 240 grams of sucralose', which is equivalent to more than' 240 individual Splenda packets/day for approximately one month. The dose required to provoke any immunological response was 750 mg/kg bw/day (USFDA Department of Health and Human Services 1998), or 60 grams of Sucralose, which is more than 60 Splenda packets. (These and other studies were considered by regulators before concluding that sucralose was safe.)

Chlorine atoms are covalently bonded to the carbon atoms in the sucralose molecule, making it a chlorocarbon. Many chlorocarbons are toxic; however, sucralose is unlike these chemicals because it is extremely insoluble in fat and does not accumulate in fat like most chlorinated hydrocarbons. In addition, sucralose does not break down or dechlorinate, according to a scientific review published by one of its vendors.

The bulk of sucralose ingested does not leave the GI tract and is directly excreted in the feces. The small amount that is absorbed from the GI tract is removed from the blood stream by the kidneys and excreted in the urine. Sucralose is digestible by a number of microorganisms and is broken down once released into the environment.

Critics of sucralose often favor natural alternatives, including Xylitol (Birch sugar widely used during World War II), Malitol, Maltitol, Thaumatin, Isomalt (popular in some European countries), and the unapproved sweetener Stevia (widely used in Japan), which is sold on many sites claiming that sucralose is unsafe. In the US, Stevia can only be sold as a dietary supplement, not a sweetener, and it may not be sold at all in the UK.

In closing, is splenda safe? All artificial sweetners have been pushed to the test at some point. I remember when saccharin was deemed to cause cancer based on lab rat testing--they lined these lab rats stomachs with a saccharin-doused cotton swab every day for a month to come to these conclusions! In a per-weight capacity, you would have to consume a lot of saccharin for it to be unhealthy. So is the question if something is toxic even at high consumption rates, should it be available? Every morning, you wake up and brush your teeth with something that would be toxic to you if you swallowed it. That's right; toothpaste.