Dose Spenda (no calorie sweetner) contain actual surgar and can to much of it make you gain weight?

Answer 1

No, it does not have actual sugar in it. It has a sugar substitute in it. There is a fraction of a calorie in it though, so eating TONS can technically add up to calories. According to the United States regulations, due to the variability of techniques used to count calories in a food, foods under 5 calories can technically be called "calorie free". That's why you've never seen something with 3 calories in it.

Answer 2

Nevermind calories! Splenda is an artificial sweetener called Sucralose, which is a chlorinated sucrose derivitive. How much chlorine would you consider it safe to eat? Splenda is carcinogenic and can cause health problems. Read up here:

http://www.newstarget.com/sucralose.html

Answer 3

blah, blah, blah. The cancer association of america (the largest in the world). Just brought out a report that states very clearly. Aspartame, or NutriSweet does in no waywhatsoever increase the rate of tumor growth!! The tests are don in mice by feeding them more thatn anyone could ever eat in their life!!

Sucralose (Splenda) 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.[3] (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."[4]

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.[5] 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,[6] or 60 grams of sucralose, which is more than 5000 Splenda packets/day (there are 11.9 mg of sucralose in a 1g retail packet of Splenda). 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.[7]

The bulk of sucralose ingested does not leave the GI tract and is directly excreted in the feces while 11-27% of it is absorbed[8]. The amount that is absorbed from the GI tract is largely removed from the blood stream by the kidneys and excreted in the urine with 20-30% of the absorbed sucralose being metabolized[9]. Sucralose is digestible by a number of microorganisms and is broken down once released into the environment[citation needed].

Critics of sucralose often favor natural alternatives, including xylitol (birch sugar widely used during World War II), maltitol, thaumatin, isomalt (popular in some European countries), and the unapproved sweetener Stevia (widely used in Japan). 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.

Aspartame: Since the FDA approved aspartame for consumption in 1981, some researchers have suggested that a rise in brain tumor rates in the United States may be at least partially related to the increasing availability and consumption of aspartame.[52] The results of a large seven-year study into the long-term effects of eating aspartame in rats by the European Ramazzini Foundation for cancer research in Bologna, Italy were released in July 2005. The study of 1,900 rats found evidence that aspartame caused leukemia and lymphoma cancer in female rats. The study showed that there was no statistically significant link between aspartame and brain tumors.

The study,[64] published in the European Journal of Oncology, raised concerns about the levels of aspartame exposure. However, the European Food Safety Authority's (EFSA) review found that the European Ramazzini Foundation's conclusion that aspartame is a carcinogen was flawed and not supported by the data.[65] The American Food & Drug Administration's (FDA) review of the Razzamini study is still pending.[66]

A more recent analysis of the European Ramazzini Foundation data published in Environmental Health Perspectives found a link between life-long aspartame consumption in the rats and cancer of the kidney and peripheral nerves.[67]

A review of the Ramazzini study by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), published 04 May 2006, concluded that the increased incidence of lymphomas/leukaemias reported in treated rats was unrelated to aspartame, the kidney tumors found at high doses of aspartame were not relevant to humans, and that based on all available scientific evidence to date, there is no reason to revise the previously established Acceptable Daily Intake levels for aspartame.[68] The European Ramazzini Foundation responded to the EFSA findings by stating that they thought the 16% increase in incidence of lymphoma and leukemia between the aspartame group and control group signified that these cancers were caused by aspartame ingestion.[69] As the EFSA had already addressed this in their 04 May 2006 press release, no further press release was made.[70]

A study published in April 2006 sponsored by the National Cancer Institute involved 340,045 men and 226,945 women, ages 50 to 69, found no statistically significant link between aspartame consumption and leukemias, lymphomas or brain tumors.[71] The study used surveys filled out in 1995 and 1996 detailing food and beverage consumption. The researchers calculated how much aspartame they consumed, especially from sodas or from adding the sweetener to coffee or tea. The researchers report, "Our findings from this epidemiologic study suggest that consumption of aspartame-containing beverages does not raise the risk of hematopoietic or brain malignancies."

Critics of this study point out that while the study looked at humans, it did not look at life-long aspartame consumption as did the Ramazzini study. The Ramazzini study simulated life-long consumption from childhood through old age (e.g., simulating 60 to 90 years of use). The new National Cancer Institute study looked at subjects who consumed diet drinks during a 12-month period from 1995 to 1996. The Ramazzini study had the disadvantage of being an animal study but looked at life-long consumption of aspartame. The National Cancer Institute study was a human study, but only looked at subjects with relatively short-term consumption of diet drinks. Finally, the questionnaire did not ask users to estimate aspartame consumption, only diet drink consumption.[72]