David Jenkins
|
| posted on 12/7/05 at 10:15 AM |
|
|
Splenda (completely off-topic)
I need a favour from someone outside the UK...
I've been doing a bit of browsing, trying to find information about the Tate & Lyle artificial sweetner, Splenda. However, I keep getting
references to a site that is critical of this stuff, and advising of its risk to health.
When I try and access this link I get the following message:
"Attorneys acting on behalf of the manufacturers of sucralose, Tate & Lyle PLC based in London, England, have requested that the information
contained on this page not be made available to Internet users in England."
I don't like censorship, especially when it's enforced by big business lawyers, so I wonder if someone outside the UK could look at this
site and cut-and-paste what it says, so that I can read it.
Thanks,
David
P.S. One of the side-effects for regular users is severe depression... there are many others, allegedly.
[Edited on 12/7/05 by David Jenkins]
|
|
|
|
|
Humbug
|
| posted on 12/7/05 at 10:21 AM |
|
|
Weird! I am in the UK and can get to the site OK and I don't get the warning message. It may be because I am not using Internet Explorer but
Avant Browser? Anyway, here is a summary (NTDWM):
"The artificial sweetener Splenda is quickly gaining popularity in a market that was previously dominated by Equal and Sweet'N Low. In
January 2003, Splenda even surpassed Equal in dollar-market share.
Splenda, the brand name for sugar-derivative sucralose, is converted from cane sugar to a no-calorie sweetener. It isn’t recognized as sugar by the
body and therefore is not metabolized.
Splenda is marketed as a "healthful" and "natural" product since it is derived from sugar. However, its chemical structure is
very different from that of sugar and sucralose is actually a chemical substance.
Dr. Mercola's Comment:
Please note that I do not advise using Splenda. Nearly three years ago I posted an article describing the dangers of Splenda (sucralose).
Why not use Splenda? Well, research in animals has shown that sucralose can cause many problems such as:
Shrunken thymus glands (up to 40% shrinkage)
Enlarged liver and kidneys
Atrophy of lymph follicles in the spleen and thymus
Increased cecal weight
Reduced growth rate
Decreased red blood cell count
Hyperplasia of the pelvis
Extension of the pregnancy period
Aborted pregnancy
Decreased fetal body weights and placental weights
Diarrhea
Nearly every month we receive a report from someone who has had an adverse reaction to Splenda, and you can see many of them posted on our site.
Interestingly, my position on sucralose has caused junkscience.com to call me a "dubious alternative health guru". I have no problem in
the fatally flawed paradigm calling me names for pointing out the truth and remain grateful that the information on this site continues to help people
avoid chemicals that will limit them from experiencing their optimal health.
Related Articles:
The Potential Dangers of Sucralose
Sucralose (Splenda®) U.S. Product List
The Dangers of Chlorine and Issues With Sucralose
Aspartame: What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You
Nutrasweet Lowers Sperm Counts
Aspartame: What You Don't Know Can Hurt You"
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 12/7/05 at 10:27 AM |
|
|
Thanks for that! Perhaps your IP address didn't register as being from the UK.
This link is also interesting (but the fact that the author is promoting her book must be taken into
consideration).
Worrying for people like me, trying to lose weight...
David
BTW: Aspartame, the other popular sweetener, was rejected by the USA FDA as dangerous to health, but was made legal following pressure by Ronald
Reagan. Allegedly.
[Edited on 12/7/05 by David Jenkins]
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 12/7/05 at 11:07 AM |
|
|
their advertising has always put me off. "made from sugar". So it is processed to turn it from what it is into something different. Not
exactly natural then. It reminds me of vegitariens who extol the virtues of natural food, who then eat a bean that has been turned into
"ham".
|
|
|
ChrisJLW
|
| posted on 12/7/05 at 01:07 PM |
|
|
"sucralose is actually a chemical substance"  that really gets my goat, EVERYTHING's a bloody chemical substance!
On the other hand I'd agree with the 'Doc' to give any artificial sweetener a wide berth. The only one that I'd recommend has
yet to be approved by the FDA or FSA, it's been used as a sweetener for 100s of years as well! 
[Edited on 12/7/05 by ChrisJLW]
I've lived a life that's full.
I've traveled each and ev'ry highway.
But more, much more than this,
I did it side-ah-ways.
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 12/7/05 at 01:12 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChrisJLW
"sucralose is actually a chemical substance" that really gets my goat, EVERYTHING's a bloody chemical substance!
I know what you mean! Even if they said "made by a chemical process", the same could be said for baking bread, or brewing beer.
I must admit I've gone off the idea of using these sweetners... 
David
|
|
|
Fozzie
|
| posted on 12/7/05 at 01:19 PM |
|
|
I tried that link using mozilla firefox and got a denial too!
I did a google search and came up with this, another damnation of the stuff
http://www.wnho.net/splenda.htm
Fozzie
'Racing is Life!...anything before or after is just waiting'....Steve McQueen
|
|
|
robertwa
|
| posted on 12/7/05 at 02:20 PM |
|
|
Everyones using splenda here - even diet Coke has two versions, splenda and regular diet coke. I just had it in my cereal reading this!!!!!
|
|
|
bob
|
| posted on 12/7/05 at 02:29 PM |
|
|
Nutrasweet went this way some time ago,we were told it was ok in the UK and US stopped using it as they found it had links to the big C which isnt
nice.
I dont believe in anything artificial apart from the lotus 7
|
|
|
jestre
|
| posted on 12/7/05 at 03:17 PM |
|
|
hmmm.... try using a public proxy ie http://www.megaproxy.com
to view sites that are blocked via Ip/firewalls.
|
|
|
Hellfire
|
| posted on 12/7/05 at 04:54 PM |
|
|
Blocked me too - under my correct proxy.
Will post when hidden 
|
|
|
Hellfire
|
| posted on 12/7/05 at 04:59 PM |
|
|
Amazing - still blocked!!!
|
|
|
spunky
|
| posted on 12/7/05 at 05:10 PM |
|
|
Sugar...
I work in the sugar industry.
We make a similar product called 'Light'
we mix sugar with Maltodextrin then add in a splash of Acersulfame K and a drop of Aspertame.
Personally if you don't want to use sugar then fine but I wouldn't substitute it with the artificial sweeteners.
Also be wary of foods stating 'low sugar' These are usually low on sucrose but full of fructose. More or less identical but from a
marketing point of view technically not sugar.
John
The reckless man may not live as long......
But the cautious man does not live at all.....
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 12/7/05 at 06:27 PM |
|
|
indeed john, i shudder when i see a soft drink that says 'no sugar' - how come its so damned sweet then! full of crap...
i have my tea with no sugar, after a few weeks it tastes lovely again, you just need to get used to it
|
|
|
jolson
|
| posted on 12/7/05 at 07:33 PM |
|
|
David
I couldn't access the site,but the webproxy link worked for me. I've saved a copy of the page as a Word document if you want it. I seem
to be having trouble attaching the file to this message.
When our first child came, my girlfriend put us on a diet of organic food, and got rid of the chemical filled junk that the supermarkets peddle. I
feel better than I have since I was a teenager, and its going to add years to my life (if I don't get involved in something silly, like fast
sports cars )
Cheers
John
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 12/7/05 at 07:42 PM |
|
|
John,
I know what you mean! I've been using elements of the GI Diet that everyone's been raving about - I'm not usually one for fads, but
this one's approved by most doctors. Basically, the rule is to eat food that's digested slowly in your innards - wholemeal bread, and so
on. First, it doesn't get converted to fat so readily, but it also makes you feel full for longer so you don't over-eat (my real
problem!). I feel a lot better already.
Using the sweetners allowed me to sneak in a few treats (bran and fruit muffins, mostly). Looks like I'll have to be a bit more virtuous now!
David
BTW: I've lost 7lbs in 3 weeks so far, so it can't be too bad a diet!
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 12/7/05 at 08:04 PM |
|
|
having eaten poorly for years really (working lunches, you know how it is...), i also stopped going to the gym last month after holiday. I gained no
weight, but developed a major gut! Must've converted all that muscle to fat i guess
In my view of things, its nearly impossible to avoid eating dodgy food. So i eat better stuff where possible (brown bread, wheetabix, salad etc),
avoid excess chocolate and sweet drinks (lunch is now water and flapjack rather than lucozade and marsbars!), and im trying to get back into the gym.
Hard work though...
|
|
|
Noodle
|
| posted on 12/7/05 at 08:12 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Jenkins
John,
I know what you mean! I've been using elements of the GI Diet that everyone's been raving about - I'm not usually one for fads, but
this one's approved by most doctors. Basically, the rule is to eat food that's digested slowly in your innards - wholemeal bread, and so
on. First, it doesn't get converted to fat so readily, but it also makes you feel full for longer so you don't over-eat (my real
problem!). I feel a lot better already.
Using the sweetners allowed me to sneak in a few treats (bran and fruit muffins, mostly). Looks like I'll have to be a bit more virtuous now!
David
BTW: I've lost 7lbs in 3 weeks so far, so it can't be too bad a diet!
It's a diabetics diet. Our whole family's on it because my 3year old's diabetic.
He has home made flap-jack for breakfast (v. little sugar) as it's the only thing that doesn't give him horrendous blood sugar readings 1
hour later. The rest of the time it's pasta, rice, oats etc. We were told by the hospital to up our fat intake that slows the absorbtion of
carbs and stops you feeling hungry.
All food's home made/prepared and I've got 2 older incredibly fit and active boys because of it. Their school always comments at parents
evening on their remarkable concentration. It's because they don't eat crap.
Neil
Your sort make me sick
|
|
|
jolson
|
| posted on 13/7/05 at 12:04 AM |
|
|
Actually, she's not not much into grains at all. Lots of fresh fruit, vegetables, meat (with the fat, appetite suppressant), & nuts.
Apparently it's all roughly what paleolithic man (and earlier) ate. Her thinking is that we spent millions of years evolving around a diet that
didn't have much grain or dairy products, and very little sugar. Apparently mankind's downfall came with the advent of agriculture.
She's not alone in thinking this way; there are a zillion books about this (she has most of them  ), and more internet mailing lists than you
would believe.
I don't stick to this religiously, as I have a tendency to eat whatever wanders close to my mouth. But given a choice, I tend now to reach for
a bit of fruit or meat when I'm hungry. I don't miss the bread or milk, and I've never had much of a sweet tooth, so I find it easy
to ignore the sugar.
I definitely notice I'm more focused and have a lot more energy when I'm eating right. Since she started eliminating the grains etc from
our diet about 1.5 yrs ago, I've lost 3 stone.
Cheers
John
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 13/7/05 at 07:15 AM |
|
|
It started with research into the best diet for diabetics, but then it became obvious that it was very good for non-diabetics as well.
It's what the dieticians have always told us - a modest amount of lean meat, load of vegetables, loads of fruit, a modest amount of
carbohydrates, loads of roughage. The only difference is avoiding the food that's rapidly absorbed into the bloodstream.
DJ
|
|
|
Alez
|
| posted on 14/7/05 at 09:16 AM |
|
|
The link works here in Spain..
|
|
|
