is it ok to use Splenda to sweeten up otherwise dull foods like oatmeal? If not, does anyone have any suggestions to sweeten up those dull foods?
Why not throw some Grow! in your oatmeal?
Nick
Personally,I wouldn’t use splenda. www.thetruthaboutsplenda.com
[quote]ntroych wrote:
Why not throw some Grow! in your oatmeal?
Nick[/quote]
that’s a good idea, thanks
Sucralose is splenda.
It is in both Grow! and Surge.
You realize that link is provided by sugar growers right?
[quote]DTak wrote:
Sucralose is splenda.
It is in both Grow! and Surge.
You realize that link is provided by sugar growers right?[/quote]
I realized that after I got there…so u are saying its ok to use?
Yeah,but there are facts on the link.
[quote]DTak wrote:
Sucralose is splenda.
It is in both Grow! and Surge.
You realize that link is provided by sugar growers right?[/quote]
Manufacturers claim on their website that Splenda is not metabolized or absorbed, and this is completely false! It is true that the majority of sucralose that is consumed is excreted in the feces and urine unchanged, but the reality is that up to 40% of the ingested sucralose is metabolized. Both the metabolites and unchanged absorbed sucralose are excreted in the urine. Meanwhile, absorbed sucralose has been found to concentrate in the liver, kidney and GI tract. The Sucralose Toxicity Information Center has also found that sucralose breaks down into small amounts of 1,6-dichlorofructose, which is a chemical that has not been tested adequately in humans.
Because sucralose is a chlorinated molecule, when metabolized, some of the chlorine and other substances in splenda (including arsenic, or rat poison) is taken by the system. Alarming? Yes, when we realize that chlorinated molecules serve as the basis for pesticides like DDT and accumulate in body fat.
According to the FDA report, ?Results from the submitted animal and human pharmacokinetics data identified three major sucralosemetabolites (Ml, M2, and M3) in urine in addition to unchanged sucralose.? The report also states, ?The metabolic profile of sucralose in rats was qualitatively similar to that seen in humans. In addition to unchanged sucralose, two sucralose metabolites, Ml and M2, were detected in the urine of rats and humans after oral dosing of sucralose?A pronounced difference was observed in the proportions of M2 and M3 excreted by male versus female mice: Males produced more M2 than M3, while the opposite was true of female mice.? Even within FDA and industry studies, metabolization and absorption of Splen-da is shown; why are the manufacturers claiming that it is not? What else are they claiming that is not true? What are they hiding?
Dude,you’ve got to talk to my cousin.He had M.S. and he would consume, on average, 15 diet sodas a day;he would put splenda on everything.His doctor told him to get off of the splenda, diet soda,and junk food. Last I heard, it’s not bothering him anymore. Interesting.
[quote]The_Grim_Reaper wrote:
Manufacturers claim on their website that Splenda is not metabolized or absorbed, and this is completely false! It is true that the majority of sucralose that is consumed is excreted in the feces and urine unchanged, but the reality is that up to 40% of the ingested sucralose is metabolized. Both the metabolites and unchanged absorbed sucralose are excreted in the urine. Meanwhile, absorbed sucralose has been found to concentrate in the liver, kidney and GI tract. The Sucralose Toxicity Information Center has also found that sucralose breaks down into small amounts of 1,6-dichlorofructose, which is a chemical that has not been tested adequately in humans.
Because sucralose is a chlorinated molecule, when metabolized, some of the chlorine and other substances in splenda (including arsenic, or rat poison) is taken by the system. Alarming? Yes, when we realize that chlorinated molecules serve as the basis for pesticides like DDT and accumulate in body fat.
According to the FDA report, ?Results from the submitted animal and human pharmacokinetics data identified three major sucralosemetabolites (Ml, M2, and M3) in urine in addition to unchanged sucralose.? The report also states, ?The metabolic profile of sucralose in rats was qualitatively similar to that seen in humans. In addition to unchanged sucralose, two sucralose metabolites, Ml and M2, were detected in the urine of rats and humans after oral dosing of sucralose?A pronounced difference was observed in the proportions of M2 and M3 excreted by male versus female mice: Males produced more M2 than M3, while the opposite was true of female mice.? Even within FDA and industry studies, metabolization and absorption of Splen-da is shown; why are the manufacturers claiming that it is not? What else are they claiming that is not true? What are they hiding? [/quote]
Watch out – the sky is falling!
To the original poster, I wouldn’t worry about a little Splenda. It’s good stuff.
[quote]The_Grim_Reaper wrote:
Manufacturers claim on their website that Splenda is not metabolized or absorbed, and this is completely false! It is true that the majority of sucralose that is consumed is excreted in the feces and urine unchanged, but the reality is that up to 40% of the ingested sucralose is metabolized. Both the metabolites and unchanged absorbed sucralose are excreted in the urine. Meanwhile, absorbed sucralose has been found to concentrate in the liver, kidney and GI tract. The Sucralose Toxicity Information Center has also found that sucralose breaks down into small amounts of 1,6-dichlorofructose, which is a chemical that has not been tested adequately in humans.
Because sucralose is a chlorinated molecule, when metabolized, some of the chlorine and other substances in splenda (including arsenic, or rat poison) is taken by the system. Alarming? Yes, when we realize that chlorinated molecules serve as the basis for pesticides like DDT and accumulate in body fat.
According to the FDA report, ?Results from the submitted animal and human pharmacokinetics data identified three major sucralosemetabolites (Ml, M2, and M3) in urine in addition to unchanged sucralose.? The report also states, ?The metabolic profile of sucralose in rats was qualitatively similar to that seen in humans. In addition to unchanged sucralose, two sucralose metabolites, Ml and M2, were detected in the urine of rats and humans after oral dosing of sucralose?A pronounced difference was observed in the proportions of M2 and M3 excreted by male versus female mice: Males produced more M2 than M3, while the opposite was true of female mice.? Even within FDA and industry studies, metabolization and absorption of Splen-da is shown; why are the manufacturers claiming that it is not? What else are they claiming that is not true? What are they hiding? [/quote]
As soon as I saw this question I knew there would be at least one yahoo conspiracy theorist who would throw out all these questionable sources and demonize it. Congratulations, it’s you! What is the fascination with being a conspiracy theorist anyways? Is it a form of paranoia that every one and every company is out to get you?
Tom Cruise has the perfect religion for you…
A little splenda= not too bad.
A ton of splenda= horrible.
Personally I would stick to something like fructose or stevia.
I remember reading a response to all of those assertions from the sugar industry explaining why they all come to nothing; particularly why the chlorination is not harmful and how plenty of natural foods have more. Not from the makers of splenda either. Wish I remembered where it was. I am unconcerned about splenda.
[quote]danew wrote:
is it ok to use Splenda to sweeten up otherwise dull foods like oatmeal? If not, does anyone have any suggestions to sweeten up those dull foods?[/quote]
I have no clue about Splenda, but why not use something like fruit, berries or honey?
[quote]Haramdar wrote:
A ton of splenda= horrible.
[/quote]
Unadulterated bullshit!
could splenda be better than ass fattening sugar…mayhaps.
Already lost intrest.
sorry, not paying attention here. I meant ass fattening sugar…
fattening??sorry that may not be a word.
Oh man,you should of seen area 51 when I was there.The aliens took me in and forced protein shakes down my throat.Then they told me that bush was actually an alien too! J/k.Yeah,eating a bunch of suger is worst.I was just saying that there are some interesting studies about splenda and that I wouldn’t use it.A little splenda won’t kill you.Sugar may make you fat,but look at all the fat people who drink nothing but diet cokes and eat all that splenda thinking they’ll lose weight. [quote]rfish1966 wrote:
could splenda be better than ass fattening sugar…mayhaps.
Already lost intrest.[/quote]
How about stevia? Calorie free and natural.