Splenda
 

I know some artificial sweeteners can help to cause cancer. Does the splenda have that cancer causing stuff in it? If so, is there anything I could use for a substitute that would be low-carb. I try to avoid those products because my family has a history of cancer.

I don't have an answer but have to 2nd your query on this.
We've heard all kind of bad things about Saccharin and Nutra Sweet only because they've been out long enough but I do wonder about Splenda.
I also wonder if Splenda feeds my candida infection. ????? I haven't seen anything on this other than *opinions* in forums and I do think my fungus will pay attention to them ;)

No one knows since Splenda has not been on the markets very long. I know that Sweet N Low was taken off the "cancer scare" list. Their was a 20 year study to disprove it's causing cancer. For me...Splenda gives me the world's worst migraines. But I seem to be one of very few that gets a reaction from Splenda. HTH! :)

Splenda so far, is considered safe. Saccrine, or Sweet & Low, still carries a warning on the box about cancer. Asperteme is much worse though, if you do a search there's a thread about the chemicals it breaks down into when heated.

If you are worried about splenda, try using stevia. It has been used in Japan for centuries and is herb based.

LadyBelle, the warning label requirement (for saccharine) was repealed not too long ago...but, most of the manufacturer's haven't taken them off yet. Of all the Artificial Sweeteners, saccharin is the ONLY one I have full faith in. It has been around since just after the War of Northern Agression (err Civil War)...and there has never been a single provable case of cancer in a HUMAN as a result of using it.

Aspartame has been around for 30 years or so...But, it has caused serious problems in humans. I will not use Aspartame at all. Sucralose and Acesulfame-K have only been out for less than 10 years. In that time (unlike Aspartame which caused problems right away) we haven't seen any problems in humans as a result of their consumption. Only time will tell what the long term risks are, if any. In the mean time...I use products made with Sucralose and Acesulfame-K, but use Stevia for sweetening stuff I cook, bake, etc...

Pourable Splenda contains maltodextrin that is derived from corn, so it's quite possible that the maltodextrin is feeding the candida.

Karen

I, like Kasper, get a reaction from Splenda. When I use sucralose or any product that contains it, I get rashes and acne like symptons. It usually takes about 2 weeks or so for the symptoms to go away. I've actually verified it for myself that it is the Splenda that causes it. I've gone months without Splenda then I reintroduce it in my diet only for my body to react within days. I refuse to use both saccharin and aspartame so I'm left without any sweets in my diet. I found this web page about Splenda related dangers, but it is kind of old. It says sucralose contains chlorine, arsenic, as well as lead, but I don't know how reliable the source is. Anyway, here it is:

http://www.mercola.com/2000/dec/3/sucralose_dangers.htm

--Jesse

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

Here is another I just found. This one says the chlorine used to make sucralose is safe.

A little knowledge can be dangerous…
 

Chemistry is not as straightforward as the names of the chemicals themselves. How many women would stop using super-glue for their nails if they knew that it is has cyanide in it? (cyanoacrylate anyone?)

The saccharine scare was based upon lab tests using an absolutely absurd amount of consumption. I don’t remember the actual numbers, but if the lab rats ate the equivalent amount of sugar per pound of body weight (which would be impossible for them, unless you could get a rat to eat several pounds of sugar per day) they probably would have developed cancers from the overdose of sugar!

Splenda is actually a “left-handed” sugar molecule. Regular sucrose is a normal "right-handed" molecule. Your body simply lacks the ability to recognize & (fully) digest a left-handed sugar molecule; therefore it just passes through your system. (I’m resisting the temptation to include a few Olestra jokes :) )

I remember reading about the discovery of these left-handed sugar molecules many years ago in one of the science journals. If I recall correctly, it was discovered as a naturally occurring, yet rare, substance. The process to synthesize regular sugar into the left-handed version requires chemical manipulation, for which the other chemicals listed are utilized.

Yes Splenda is good
 

As per New Dr Atkins book Pg 128, he says his preference is sucralose
(Splenda), the only sweetener made from sugar. Sucralose is safe, noncaloric and does not raise blood sugar, It has been used in Canada for years, and the FDA recently approved it after viewing more than one hundred studies conducted over the past twenty years.

hope this helps you out

Debbie

So does your tap water...I bought some bottled spring water, and on the back...it read "Dissolved Solids: 21 P.P.M." and below that "As, Cu, Fe, Pb".

As = Arsenic
Cu = Copper
Fe = Iron
Pb = Lead

Where can I find Stevia?
 

I think I will try using the Stevia. Is this available at most health food stores (GNC,etc.)?

I use a Splenda Vanilla syrup all the time in my coffee and I have had no adverse affects at all.

Lori ;)

Stevia is pretty good but you have to use sparingly as it is very strong.

Holy Moly Six Foot Six :)
Thank you for that explanation - that is more than I could find in an entire day of research on the web :)
I'd love to know more about it as I have a candida infeciton in my gut and I am trying very hard not to feed it (Please Don't Feed My Gut Animals!)

Chemistry teacher stepping in here...
 

Oops. Close, but not quite. (Following structures are from http://class.fst.ohio-state.edu/FST...res/lect14.html)

This molecule is sucrose. Notice the OH on the left-most carbon, the CH2OH sticking up from the left side of the second ring, and the CH2OH on the right.




This is sucralose. Noticee that there are now Cl (chlorine) atoms replacing the -OH (hydroxyl) groups in those three locations.




Everything else is the same. Only those three OH groups have been replaced with Cl. Now in the body the enzyme sucrase breaks down sucrose into glucose and fructose which are absorbed into the blood. And as you may be aware, enzymes work with a "lock and key" mechanism. The substrate (sucrose) must fit exactly into the binding site on the enzyme molecule (sucrase). Except that in sucralose, the Cl atoms are differently shaped than the OH groups. So sucralose doesn't fit into the sucrase like it should. So it's not metabolized like sucrose.

However, other enzymes will attack it, but not very efficiently, so only a portion of what is ingested will be broken down and metabolized by the body. (About 20% of it I think.)

So, sucralose, being 600 times sweeter than sugar, and not being broken down in the body like sugar, makes an excellent replacement.

However..... proponents of sucralose say that the chlorine atom is already in our body (it is, but not the atom, but an ion of chlorine - from the NaCl and other salts we consume). But on the sucralose molecule it isn't in the ion form. It is covalently bonded to the atom, the same way chlorine and fluorine atoms are bonded to things like freon and other organic compounds. The long-term effect this will have on the body is yet to be seen. So the 100% safety of this substance has not yet been shown.

Chemistry lesson over. Any questions? :q:

Joan

Stevia,aplant used in Japan since 1970 is the safest sugar substitute. No known side effects. Use like any other substitute