There are several chain emails doing the rounds at the moment that claim to have evidence that an artificial sweetner (Aspartame - often sold under the brand-name 'NutraSweet' or 'Spoonful') is responsible for brain tumours, cancer and multiple-sclerosis.
Be aware - it's bunkum.
http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/aspartame.asp Still -- Everything in moderation. I'm sure if you ate a pound of the stuff a day, you might get a tumor.
| brokenadvice wrote: |
| Still -- Everything in moderation. I'm sure if you ate a pound of the stuff a day, you might get a tumor. |
Nope...tried itJudging from the experiments that WERE done (funded by the Sugar producers so I wonder how impartial they were) the rats were given around 1.5 times their own bodyweight of the stuff for a protracted period. You would, therefore, probably need several stones, rather than a pound or two...
Though it can make you irritable, you'd do better to watch your MSG consumption. MSG is some nasty stuff.
| brokenadvice wrote: |
| Still -- Everything in moderation. |
I never really bought into that philosophy. In any case, aspartame seems to give me headaches sometimes, so I avoid it entirely!Yes but if you ate the stones before the time limit you would probably exhibit the same negative effects as the rats...
| EanofAthenasPrime wrote: |
| Yes but if you ate the stones before the time limit you would probably exhibit the same negative effects as the rats... |
Not necessarily. Studies with different species are often useful but rarely definitive.The key issue is whether the replacement of sucrose with previous aspartame could result in a prolonged decrease in calorie intake that is of similar magnitude to that necessary to produce a health benefit.
| yagnyavalkya wrote: |
| The key issue is whether the replacement of sucrose with previous aspartame could result in a prolonged decrease in calorie intake that is of similar magnitude to that necessary to produce a health benefit. |
Well, not really. The key issue is that this is a scientific-sounding hoax.
The secondary issue, as to the effectiveness of sugar substitutes, is multi-faceted. There is no doubt that reducing calorie intake has an effect on weight. There ARE questions about the psychological factors involved. There is also a potential health and lifestyle benefit to diabetics in using artificial sweetners such as Aspartame.Always weigh the pros and cons.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| There is also a potential health and lifestyle benefit to diabetics in using artificial sweetners such as Aspartame. |
Absolutely. If it weren't for drinks containing zero carbohydrates (of which there only a few, and they all use aspartame as sweetener) diabetics had no drink at all which they can afford to drink in large ammounts. All those 'light'-products, sugar-free drinks, etc. are offlimits for diabetics because they always contain carbohydrate.
As a diabetic who drinks quite a lot during the day, the only option for me is Cola light: 0% carbohydrate, but it contains Aspartame. I drink about 6 liters of Diet Coke a day, and can tell you this claim is hilarious:
| Quote: |
Aspartame is especially deadly for diabetics. All physicians know what wood alcohol will do to a diabetic. We find that physicians believe that they have patients with retinopathy, when in fact, it is caused by the aspartame. The aspartame keeps the blood sugar level out of control, causing many patients to go into a coma. Unfortunately, many have died.
|
Especially this claim:
| Quote: |
The aspartame keeps the blood sugar level out of control, causing many patients to go into a coma.
|
is stupid, ignorant and plain false: I can tell from exprerience that aspartame does NOT keep the blood sugar level out of control!
Last edited by MrBlueSky on Fri Jan 04, 2008 1:10 pm; edited 2 times in totalCorrect me if I'm wrong, but aren't 'sugar alcohols' and Splenda OK for diabetics?
| Gagnar The Unruly wrote: |
| Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't 'sugar alcohols' and Splenda OK for diabetics? |
You are not entirely wrong in fact close to correct
actually The American Diabetes Association claims that sugar alcohols are acceptable in a moderate amount but should not be eaten in excess
sugar alcohols cause abdominal discomfort and the main advantage is for the teeth rather than for the controlling blood sugar
Splenda or Sucralose its receptors are not recognized by by the body as carbohydrate hence insulin turn over is unaffected
I would suggest simple sugar avoidance as a protective measure against low insulin turn over as against any commercial sweetners
brain distinguishes the caloric from the non-caloric sweetener, the conscious mind does not. This has important implications on how effective artificial sweeteners as a sugar substitute sugar
In fact one study (Lack of effect of sucralose on glucose homeostasis in subjects with type 2 diabetes in Journal of the American Dietetic Association, Volume 103, Issue 12, December 2003, Pages 1607-1612)
shows that " sucralose consumption for 3 months at doses of 7.5 mg/kg/day, which is approximately three times the estimated maximum intake, had no effect on glucose homeostasis in individuals with type 2 diabetes. "
