Splenda

[cmcole]

http://www.alive.com/4401a12a2.php

[Relief]

I choose to use splenda along wiht the Eades --and would like to counter with this from Mary Dan Eades blog:

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmd/archives/2005/09/Sweeten_the_Pot.html

September 01, 2005

Sweeten the Pot?

Since the premier of our new PBS cooking series Low Carb CookwoRx (http://www.lowcarbcookworx.com/), we've gotten a ton of mail about the use of Splenda in recipes. The queries range from the venomous (How can you recommend a deadly toxin in your cooking?) to the merely inquisitive (Is Splenda safe?) With so much interest in the use of Splenda, I thought I'd share a portion of a recent answer to one of our viewers who inquired about the safety issue.
The short answer is that as of this writing, Splenda (sucralose) seems to us to be safe to use in reasonable quantities. The long answer follows.
As early humans, sweetness in our food came from seasonally available fruits and occasionally available wild honey. We didn't have access to large amounts of sweet foods in nature and our physiologic design simply doesn't tolerate them well. Ideally, we would content ourselves with the natural sweetness in foods, but the sugar genie escaped from the bottle a long time ago and there seems to be no way to get him back in. From a metabolic standpoint, using an artificial sweetener that doesn't raise blood sugar and insulin and doesn't contribute a lot of extra calories seems a more sensible and healthier option than using one that does. In a perfect world, the best thing for our health would be to shake the sweet habit altogether--not simply by replacing a metabolically active sweetener with a more inert one, but by truly eliminating added sweeteners from our diets. A noble aspiration, to be sure, but until then, used in moderation (as all things should be), Splenda seems an acceptable compromise.
There are doubtlessly people who do not tolerate sucralose or who have experienced an adverse reaction to it; biological individuality makes it possible for a particular person to react adversely to or be intolerant of almost any substance, from sesame seeds to aspirin. But just as we wouldn't expect to ban aspirin because some small percentage of people are seriously allergic to it, if in most people it provides a benefit, so we wouldn't necessarily want to indict sucralose because some people don't tolerate it. Unlike aspartame, which we do feel has a significant enough amount of serious scientific data to indict it as a health hazard to most all of us and which we specifically caution against, thusfar, we have not been impressed with the adverse health claims levelled against sucralose.
According to their official website, the FDA (http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/%7Elrd/tpsucral.html) claims that it reviewed 110 studies on humans and animals searching for problems with sucralose, such as toxicities, carcinogenesis, etc. and that they found none. Despite anectdotal reports on such websites as Dr. Mercola's (http://www.mercola.com/2000/dec/3/sucralose_dangers.htm#), which to our perusal did not contain any links to the specific articles upon which the good doctor bases his assertions, we have not yet been able to uncover a scientifically valid reason to question its inherent safety after a pretty extensive review of the current serious medical and scientific literature. That's not to say that it doesn't have its cadre of detractors, with the most vocal group being backed by the sugar lobby, who, it can be fairly said, have much to gain by undermining sales of Splenda. For instance, in countering the Splenda ad, which says Splenda tastes like sugar because it's made from sugar, the detractors reply that feeding Splenda to your kids is like feeding them a daily dose of chlorine--or as Dr. Mercola puts it, DDT. That logic, while it makes an alarming sound bite, is quite a stretch. It's true that Splenda (sucralose) is made from sugar--it's a sugar molecule in which a couple of chemical groups have been replaced with chloride ions, making it sort of a chloride salt of sucrose. While that may sound ominous, remember that the very same chloride ion makes up one-half of every molecule of table salt, which to our knowledge has not been classified as toxic--in reasonable quantities. At least, we recall no negative ads claiming that feeding your children table salt is like feeding them a daily dose of chlorine.
We have chosen to use Splenda in many of our recipes, because it is widely available, easy to measure and use as a sugar substitute, heat-stable for baking, well-tolerated by most people, and has a pretty clean taste, without an unpleasant aftertaste. Obviously, those people who don't tolerate it, who have allergic reactions to it, or who for whatever reason don't want to use it should not do so. As far as non-nutritive sweeteners go, we also have used stevia, xylitol, erythritol, and others in our recipes, but Splenda is the easiest one for most people to find. There are several good books on Xylitol (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?link_code=ur2&camp=1789&tag=proteinpowerc-20&creative=9325&path=tg/detail/-/097460450X/qid=1125604681/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1?v=glance%26s=books%26n=507846)http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=proteinpowerc-20&l=ur2&o=1 and stevia (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?link_code=ur2&camp=1789&tag=proteinpowerc-20&creative=9325&path=tg/detail/-/1928906141/qid=1125605160/sr=8-10/ref=pd_bbs_10?v=glance%26s=books%26n=507846)http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=proteinpowerc-20&l=ur2&o=1 with methods for cooking with these sweeteners and we are happy to share them.
We have no affiliation with Splenda or its makers and no ax to grind in coming down for it or opposing it other than what we feel is valid based on the science currently available. We reserve the right to change our stance on the subject (as we did with aspartame some years ago) if and when the scientific evidence warrants it. If you know of any serious medical research that would cast doubt on its safety, we urge you to forward us that citation and we will investigate. I'm not talking here about anecdotal reports, although those are certainly valid for the individual in question, but hard clinical scientific studies. We will honestly look at them and comment upon them and if their weight demands it, change our position, and let everybody know.


also Dr. Mike Eades comments in his blog here
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/archives/2006/01/splenda_misinfo.html

[Mitra]

I say, quite simply, that no artificial sweetener is natural and that there is no place for artificial sweeteners in a truly healthy diet. One is either willing to consume artificial foods or not. When we are willing, we must take the health risks that inevitably come with such choices.

I don't eat splenda, so I'm not trying to defend my own position here, but I think this paragraph suggests a personal bias, rather than scientific analysis. Yes, splenda is artificial, and if "natural" implies a minimum of processing, then it would be unlikely you'd classify anything as both "artificial," and "natural." But there are plenty of natural things that are unhealthy, and being artificial doesn't in itself make something unhealthy.

[Gaelen]

Well, I actually 'choose to use' very small amounts of minimally refined organic sugars or a bit of stevia on the rare occasions that I need a sweetener in a recipe. Yep, I know...some people think that sugars in any amount are poison, but like MD Eades notes about Mercola comparing eating Splenda to eating DDT, for me that's a 'bit of a stretch.' YMMV.

Actually, the quote in Tonn's article that I found most telling was this one:
The sweetest advice I can give is to stop searching for a way to get away with eating an unhealthy diet. In the long run, artificial sweeteners do not benefit anyone except for those who are concerned with the business of manufacturing and advertising such products. (bold emphasis is mine...Gaelen)

The thing is, the single largest reason that people don't stick to a way of eating for life, and treat eating healthier as a temporary 'diet', is the compliance issue. People don't want to give up things they enjoy, so thpse who look to maintain an eating style long-term look for all sorts of ways to incorporate the things they enjoy into their chosen eating style. We all do it to some degree. It's not a sin, but it may not be our healthiest choice. However, NOT complying with the new eating style is usually a worse choice. so if adapting and incorporating certain tastes we miss into an eating style makes it do-able long-term, then we individually have to decide what's a more important trade-off. ;)

I can't tell you how many of my cookbooks have Weight Watcher's 'points' and recipes modifications pencilled into the margins...and the very first thing I did before starting Protein Power was follow the Eadeses' advice in the first book, to figure out the carb/protein counts of a typical serving of my favorite foods, and then figure out what size serving (if any) was acceptable on plan. ;) I know some people can't tolerate even a small serving of sweet things, or of dairy, or grains, or whatever triggers them--but if I've learned anything in 30 years of dieting, it's a little bit about how I deal emotionally with food, and how to handle some of the things that trigger me so that I'm handling them and they're not handling me.

And like it or not in the end Tonn's last statement is true--the largest beneficiary of the use of artificial sweeteners are the people who make them and the people who advertise them. ;)

[laughingW]

I don't use it because it keeps alive the addictive brain chemistry. dopamine etc, which I don't know if the articles talked about because... I didn't have the patience to read them.

Bless Dr. Eades' hearts for continuing to say addictive substances are safe for some people (caffeine and intense sweet) but they always say, too, that for some, eating food substances that act like a drug "in moderation" hurts compliance, not helps it, which is true in my case.

And I have totally yummy food too so it's not like quitting drug food means I only eat cardboard. Whole foods are wonderful.

[cmcole]

I'm actually pleased to see the responses to this article. I enjoy your input/insight. It keeps me thinking. I am not trying to be confrontational with my postings, just inquisitive.

[Belfrybat]

Well, I do use Splenda, and stevia, and erethrytol (can't spell it though) and inulin, and Diabetic Sweet, and Whey Low. They all help keep me on plan when only something sweet will do. My use of artificial sweeteners is diminishing, but I don't expect to ever not use some. Are they harmful? Probably in large amounts (remember the cyclomate scare of the '70's?). But anything in large doses, including water, can be harmful. Like Gaelen said, if the use of them helps keep me compliant with a healthier WOE, then I'll use any crutch I can. I also trust the Eades -- they have done a lot of research and I really think, of all the "Diet gurus" out there, they are some of the best, so unless they begin to question Splenda, I'll continue to use it.

[Relief]

Well, I do use Splenda, and stevia, and erethrytol (can't spell it though) and inulin, and Diabetic Sweet, and Whey Low. They all help keep me on plan when only something sweet will do. My use of artificial sweeteners is diminishing, but I don't expect to ever not use some. Are they harmful? Probably in large amounts (remember the cyclomate scare of the '70's?). But anything in large doses, including water, can be harmful. Like Gaelen said, if the use of them helps keep me compliant with a healthier WOE, then I'll use any crutch I can. I also trust the Eades -- they have done a lot of research and I really think, of all the "Diet gurus" out there, they are some of the best, so unless they begin to question Splenda, I'll continue to use it.

well said--my position exactly.

[Gabriel Guzman]

I don't use it because it keeps alive the addictive brain chemistry. dopamine etc, which I don't know if the articles talked about because... I didn't have the patience to read them.

I'd still like to see the 'real' evidence of this. If you have the link or know the source, I'd appreciate the information. I haven't found any article linking sucralose directly with problems in brain chemistry, compared to quite a few found that make the case for aspartame.

Regarding the article before, well... somebody already note that there is a personal bias instead of fact-driven or evidence-based opinion.

There seems to be 'common' knowledge that becasue soemthing is natural then has to be 'better' or even good. Exhibit A: ephedrin. Sugar itself is natural. Now, since sucralose contains three chlorine atoms and since there is a family of chlorinated compounds that are carcinogens, therefore sucralose must be equally harmful. It would seem that, following the syllogism (deductive reasoning in which a conclusion is derived from two premises), the first premise is that some chlorinated compounds are carcinogenic; the second premise is that sucralose contains three atoms of chlorine, therefore (now the conclusion), sucralose is carcinogenic. Nice syllogism, only not based on evidence. If that is the case for sucralose, then we should not consume sodium chloride either... after all, the molecule does contain an atom of chlorine.

It is interesting that Ms. Tonn forgot to include in her article (or at least mention) the report from the Canadian Journal of Diabetes (CANADIAN JOURNAL OF DIABETES. 2004;28(4):385-399.), in which they review the use of non-nutritive intense sweeteners in diabetes management. The review, while it does cite studies in which there is no link between sucralose and cancer or any other degenerative disease in humans or animals, it does cite the following:

There were no clinically detectable adverse effects from sucralose intake in either study. Studies have confirmed that sucralose is noncariogenic. However, sucralose-based sweeteners that contain bulking ingredients to allow them to pour and measure like sugar do have cariogenic potential (although much lower than sugar) due to the presence of added carbohydrate fermented by bacteria in the mouth.

So what is it then, sucralose per se or something else present in some of the sucralose containing products?

[Doug McCallum]

I heartily agree with cmcole, who wrote:


The sweetest advice I can give is to stop searching for a way to get away with eating an unhealthy diet. In the long run, artificial sweeteners do not benefit anyone except for those who are concerned with the business of manufacturing and advertising such products.

It's also worth looking at the article, "The Search for Sweet" in the current (May 22, 2006) issue of The New Yorker, which notes that "Artificial sweeteners, far from diminishing that appetite [for sugar], often seem to reinforce it;" while the consumption of artificial sweeteners nearly doubled from 1980 to 2005, "sugar consumption rose about twenty-five per cent in the same period."

This suggests to me that many people are just deceiving themselves, and think they can have their cake and eat it--literally. In fact, I think there is a strong correlation between weening oneself off sweeteners and the kinds of artificial foods that employ them and breaking free of self-deception--and, dare I say it--addiction.

It's not a strong argument to say, "People don't want to give up things they enjoy, so thpse who look to maintain an eating style long-term look for all sorts of ways to incorporate the things they enjoy into their chosen eating style." Of course, they don't. But alcoholics and drug addicts don't want to give up what they enjoy either. That's no excuse for not doing so, is it?

Yet the fact is we live in an age in which most people are as addicted to sugar as some individuals are to other addictive substances. Of course it's hard to break an addiction, but that doesn't mean one shouldn't make the maximum effort to do so. When I first began weaning myself off sugar, I began by drinking my coffee without it. At first the coffee tasted exactly like overheated dishwater. That encouraged me to start buying better quality brands and gradually my taste for it returned.

It helped to read a book which pointed out that sugar and other junk foods (and what other foods do contain added sugar?) cause our taste receptors to atrophy over time, but that we can bring them back by returning to a natural diet. That led my wife and me to convert to organic foods, which I was already interested in, and which in turn allowed me to eliminate all processed foods from my diet. Discovering that organics had noticeably more flavour than their conventionally grown counterparts has enhanced my sense of taste enormously and made it easier to resist food temptations.

Organic fruit now satisfies our appetite for sweetness, and leaves virtually no craving for any form of junk food. (We allow ourselves a very occasional splurge on ice cream.) This not only makes it easier to keep my weight down, but is obviously a lot healthier. I have combined elements of Protein Power, the Zone and Atkins for the past eight years and appreciate the benefits, but I don't believe that the best way to follow any of them is by cheating and using artificial sweeteners to eat things that still aren't healthy. Refined flour isn't good for anyone. Most baked goods are mostly empty calories, whether they are low carb or not.

If you want to eat bread, try one of the organic varieties that use only sprouted whole grains. The brand we usually buy has 5 grams of fiber and 8 grams of net carbohydrate per slice. The flavour is excellent. Such breads are readily available here in the small town of Chilliwack, Canada, so I'm sure they can be found in most parts of the U. S. We also enjoy organic oatmeal and rice in small amounts. My wife and I never did like pasta, thank Heaven!

Organic foods not only make it far easier and more pleasant to follow a low carbohydrate diet, but they have numerous other benefits: additional nutrients, absence of toxic chemicals and lack of undesirable hormones, as well as the satisfaction of supporting independent farmers, encouraging humane treatment of livestock and helping the environment. Maybe the people who have trouble giving up "the things they enjoy" should make an effort to discover better things to enjoy, including a clearer conscience and additional peace of mind.

Some folks say organics cost too much money, but a wise and pioneering physician wrote more than 80 years ago, "You can pay it to the grocer, or you can pay it to the druggist." Besides there are always superfluous things that are worth cutting out of a budget.

BTW, while making these changes my wife and I did try Splenda for a while, but she couldn't stand the aftertaste, so we gave it up. As for Stevia, I add a pinch of it to green tea, but Atkins points out that too much of it can have an adverse effect on blood sugar, so I use it very sparingly.

Best wishes to all, and many thanks to the Drs. Eades, whose wonderful books helped me go from a waist size of 34, accumulated over two decades, back to the size 28 waist I'd had when I was 18! Life is sweeter now! Protein Power forever!!!

Doug McCallum :nod:

[Gaelen]

Welcome in, Doug. While organic foods can be wonderful, they can also be...less than wonderful...and jsut because it's 'organic' is no guarantee of taste or quality. It's also a LOT harder to find quality organic foods in some areas of the U.S. I'm lucky enough to live in an area of the northeastern U.S. where there are plenty of local farmers and local small organic producers and purveyors...but I know that's the exception, not the rule.

It's also worth noting that while many of my favorite suppliers are local farmers using sustainable farming methods, not all of them qualify as 'organic' producers. Frankly, I prefer to support the local economy whenever possible--but I'm more concerned with taste and quality than with whether the farm meets the standards necessary to qualify as an 'organic' producer in the U.S. That said, I don't agree that choosing to pay the extra price for organics is always possible just by eliminating "superfluous things that are worth cutting out of a budget." When organic avocados (which have to be flown/trucked in to this area) $3 apiece, and non-organic avocados are $1 apiece, and I go through 4 avos per week, well...that's an $8 savings that goes into the gas money fund. ;) Some of us are living a bit closer to the bone than others; in any case, fresh food in season for a reasonable price is, IMO, more critical than whether it's organic in the context of my overall budget.

Finally, there is one additional misconception in your post..."Most baked goods are mostly empty calories, whether they are low carb or not." Au contraire, Doug. Some of us make low carb baked goods that are not only NOT empty calories, but which are capable of providing a substantial amount of protein to either create or boost a meal. I generally don't use refined flours, or artificial sweeteners--and when you bake with nut flours, dry curd farmer's cheese, kefir, eggs, nuts and seeds, you can produce natural foods baked goods high in protein, low in carbs and full of good fats like virgin coconut oil, extra virgin olive oil, and nut oils. YMMV.

Again, welcome in.

[laughingW]

As we've discussed before Gabe, the evidence I work from is experiential from the working group at DesMaisons'. Experiential evidence is real too, just earlier in the scientific method and not also repeatable and verifiable - yet.

Here is a mouse study by Bart Hoebel based on sugar. The inferential leap from "mouse studies on sugar" to "any intense sweet in humans" is a working hypothesis at this point and I sure don't expect single studies focusing on sucralose in the near future. However, I personally am "acting as if".

http://www.ssib.org/FullAbstract.asp?ID=166

[kevinpa]

Wasn't there a mouse study scare in the 70's and 80's that said Saccharin gave people cancer too? What ever happen to if it doesn't agree with you don't use it and stop trying to alarm everybody. Geeeez!

[laughingW]

Hey I'm just sharing my own story of what works for me, and answering specific questions.

Sorry you got scared.

[kevinpa]

Sorry you got scared.

Not a chance.;) I use sucralose in the liquid form. I wanna kill those brain cells fast.:rolleyes:

[Doug McCallum]

Welcome in, Doug. While organic foods can be wonderful, they can also be...less than wonderful...and jsut because it's 'organic' is no guarantee of taste or quality.

Thanks for the welcome. However, I disagree with the above statement. It used to be a problem when organics were in their infancy, but since I began buying them that has not been a problem. Many people have switched to organics only because they taste better. If the produce is not good it usually reflects on the store rather than the farmer. Some stores fail to treat such products properly. Eg. fresh produce without preservatives need to be stored at lower temperatures to keep it fresh and prevent spoilage.

I admit that I should have indicated that I was using the term "organic" loosely, to refer to produce that does not contain pesticides and, if possible, was not grown with chemical fertilizers. These things do immense damage to the environment as well as to people--especially to farmers and farm workers, who suffer disproportionately from their ill effects. Local farms often advertize "unsprayed" berries, for example, and I buy those and freeze them.

I also meant meat products that come from farms that treat animals humanely and do not inject them with estrogen, growth hormones, or antibiotics--these, too, hurt both the environment and consumers. There are many food products that avoid those hazards without being absolutely certified organic, and I buy them myself. "Free range chickens" are an example, as are the eggs which they produce. But they are still relatively organic compared to the conventional alternatives.

Organic farming, in the loose sense I've outlined, has been growing at more than 20% per year for the past decade, so I can hardly be a prophet crying in the wilderness. I merely jumped on a well established and ongoing bandwagon. It's time we supported family farmers: agribusinesses have already driven too many of them off the land and fed too many toxic substances to the rest of us. I laugh when I hear or read "advice" to wash produce: most pesticides today are systemics, which the plant absorbs internally. Besides, how do you wash strawberries or raspberries with soap and water?

Speaking of water, your argument about costs doesn't hold any. We see plenty of headlines about rising gas costs in the U. S. up here in Canada. Jay Leno (with all his wealth!) makes tiresome jokes about the subject ad nauseum. Well I have some some news for you. Americans have been paying substantially lower gas prices than Canadians for more than 30 years, and yet Canada is the largest single supplier of oil to the U. S. Europeans are used to paying still larger prices than Canadians do. They are also used to paying a much larger percentage of their household incomes for food. Yet organics are growing even faster in Europe than in North America.

Apparently Europeans, and even Canadians, to a lesser extent, have learned to pay more for such commodities than Americans while still enjoying quality of life. When I mentioned cutting superfluous items from one's budget I meant expensive, useless things like ever larger, ever more gas-guzzling vehicles. There are many reasons for eliminating those, including global warming/climate change. Remember Al Gore, the man whom everyone else in the world believes was robbed of the U. S. Presidency? He has a new movie and book coming out, which you might want to take a look at.

But you could go a lot further back, to one of the truly great books of the 20th Century: Rachel Carson's "The Silent Spring." Ms. Carson, an American scientist, was the pioneer of ecological awareness and the environmental movement. In the late 1950s and early 1960s she already understood the damage which widespread chemically-driven farming practices were doing. Having noticed the decline in the numbers of songbirds, she borrowed her title from a poem by John Keats entitled "La Belle Dame Sans Merci." The line reads: "The sedge is withered by the spring and no birds sing." The chemical companies and the agribusinesses tried unsuccessfully to discredit Ms. Carlson and literally hounded her to death. She was a great American and a true prophet.

I certainly support the importance of a low carbohydrate diet in combatting the epidemic of obesity that now afflicts much of the world. Nevertheless, other measures are equally essential for maintaining human well being and opposing the myriad threats to it, many of which are caused by us but are also reversible by us. Low carb diets alone are not sufficient. We need to combine them with other measures to achieve/maintain optimum health. I was merely attempting to advocate a holistic approach to the problem and to suggest that a few small reductions in lifestyle might be worth it.

My wife and I are far from rich, but we feel a lot better about ourselves, and therefore a lot better, since we scaled back our way of life, began eating healthier foods, and paying fairer prices for them, and began consuming fewer of the world's diminishing resources. They're all interconnected, and they're all subject to choice.

Dr. Carl Jung, co-founder with Freud of psychoanalysis, was the first person to discover that the mind and body are inseparable and that whatever affects the one affects the other. He was the forerunner of all holistic thinking since, including holistic medicine and nutrition. All I was suggesting is that the best way to feed the body is the best way to feed the mind, and vice versa, and that you can do both at the same time.

Thanks again for your welcome. But I think you missed my point. The best way to change your diet is to examine your life and change everything else about it that you can, and change it in the same direction. Above all see that everything is connected.

[Gabriel Guzman]

As we've discussed before Gabe, the evidence I work from is experiential from the working group at DesMaisons'. Experiential evidence is real too, just earlier in the scientific method and not also repeatable and verifiable - yet.

Here is a mouse study by Bart Hoebel based on sugar. The inferential leap from "mouse studies on sugar" to "any intense sweet in humans" is a working hypothesis at this point and I sure don't expect single studies focusing on sucralose in the near future. However, I personally am "acting as if".

http://www.ssib.org/FullAbstract.asp?ID=166

There is no question about the importance of experiential evidence and that is not the point. The point, and sometimes the problem, is not going beyond the simple, apparent association to uncover true relationships. While awaiting for such studies, if they ever happen, simple associations suddenly change their stature and become proven fact. That's exactly how the lipid hypothesis stopped being a hypothesis and became a current dogma.

I have seen and worked on enough studies with mice to get extremelly skeptical when researches make a direct extrapolation from the mouse model into the human model. I admit it is very tempting and unfortunately it has lead to a number of misconceptions not only in nutrition but also in other areas such as endocrinology and immunology, in which I had first hand experience. Somebody mentioned the case of saccharin, which was considered carcinogenic in the past, based on murine studies. As it turns out, while that does happen in mice, it may not happen in humans due to the differences in mouse and human physiology as well as differences the toxicokinetics of saccharin itself between mice and humans. Personally, while I think that use of artificial or alternative sweeteners such as sucralose or Stevia, respectively, is an individual's choice, I just point out that the information needs to be at least objective before demonizing something. When I first read Protein Power, I remember that I didn't believe all the bad reputation of Aspartame (I used Equal for quite some time before) and I didn't change my mind after I weighed not only the Eades' references but others that I found on my own. Anyway, it was just an opinion.

[Gabriel Guzman]

I admit that I should have indicated that I was using the term "organic" loosely, to refer to produce that does not contain pesticides and, if possible, was not grown with chemical fertilizers. These things do immense damage to the environment as well as to people--especially to farmers and farm workers, who suffer disproportionately from their ill effects. Local farms often advertize "unsprayed" berries, for example, and I buy those and freeze them.


This is interesting. Some time ago I had a nice discussion with a colleague, who is a chemist, about this same thing. We discussed that the term organic is just as misused just as the term 'global warming'. [Note: Please, don't start an enviromental discussion here as I'm only using that term as an example to illustrate my point. Those discussions are welcomed in the Break Room]. Natural, unprocessed, non-chemical... those convey the idea behind what most people understand as 'organic', just as 'global climate change' seems to be a more accurate term for what it's really happening but most people understand as 'global warming'.

Anyway, my colleague and I agreed that strictly speaking, chemical fertilizers are organic and are also 'synthetic'. What natural pesticides are not is 'synthetic'. In the past, long time ago, I was involved for a very short period in a project exploring the use of a toxin produced by a bacterium to kill insects that affect corn crops, which was and still is an extremely important crop in my country. Was that organic? Yes, it was a protein made mainly of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and bits of sulfur, and not made of silicon, or rare metals. Was it chemical? Yes, or more accurately it was 'biochemical', produced by the bacterium's metabolism. Was it natural? Absolutely and its synthesis in the lab was not part of the project. Was it synthetic? No.

If you think of highly refined products in which the process doesn't involve any chemical treatment may also be potentially 'organic' in the misunderstood sense and also 'processed'. One might argue that it's just semantics but that's how misconceptions start, spread, and climb to a high status of 'concept' and accepted truth. So, my colleague and I found a fair ground in which instead of 'organic', we thought that perhaps 'natural' is the idea behind 'organic', and one that is a lot easier to understand for most people.


Apparently Europeans, and even Canadians, to a lesser extent, have learned to pay more for such commodities than Americans while still enjoying quality of life. When I mentioned cutting superfluous items from one's budget I meant expensive, useless things like ever larger, ever more gas-guzzling vehicles. There are many reasons for eliminating those, including global warming/climate change. Remember Al Gore, the man whom everyone else in the world believes was robbed of the U. S. Presidency? He has a new movie and book coming out, which you might want to take a look at.

I failed to see how the above comment relates to the original topic. I've been moderating and administrating this board for the past six years in its present and past forms and I've seen unnecessarily heated discussions, that have nothing to do with the topic of the thread, erupt just because of comments such as the one above. So, I'd like invite you all to get back to the original topic and save political views for a more appropriate forum such as the Break Room.

[laughingW]

the information needs to be at least objective before demonizing something
Well ... we still have people saying that objective studies support the lipid hypothesis.

I know what you mean though. I will take care to mention only my own experience and not mention a hypothesis as if it were fact.

But golly, one person says "scaring everyone" and you said "demonizing."

Why such a charge...?

[Gaelen]

Not a chance.;) I use sucralose in the liquid form. I wanna kill those brain cells fast.:rolleyes:

Kevin...and anyone else who extrapolated the link LaughingW posted to eationg sucralose = cancer, that is NOT what the study examined, nor is it what the abstract discusses. The study looked at dopamine (a brain chemical that figures prominently in addiction and addictive behavior studies) and whether Dopamine could be 'turned up' or accentuated by sugar bingeing, and it made some notes (as abstract often do) about whether these results might also be worth studying in the context of controlled exposure/removal of artificially high sweet tastes that are found in artificial sweeteners. I won't post the link, I'll post the abstract; it's a pretty short and accesible read:

First Name: Bart Last Name: Hoebel
Abstract Title: Eating for dopamine: effects of learning, weight loss, bingeing and purging
Abstract: Eating for dopamine: effects of learning, weight loss, bingeing and purging. B.G. HOEBEL, N.M. AVENA, M. BOCARSLY, P. RADA. Department of Psychology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08540, USA.

Food reinforcement and the release of release can change together through conditioning. A learned-preferred taste releases dopamine (DA) in the nucleus accumbens (NAc), and a learned-aversive taste lowers it. Rats at 85% body weight have extracellular DA as low as 50% of normal. They release less DA when fed a chow meal, but after a sugar binge, DA increases to 175% of baseline, compared to 122% at normal weight. Underweight rats also self-administer more of abused drugs. The drugs are addictive, but food is not. Drugs and food are different. But, key differences disappear if the food is (a) sweet, (b) taken after food deprivation and (c) the animal adjusts its behavior so as to binge regularly for several weeks. Then the food is like a drug. Why? (1) Bingeing on sugar can release DA without fail, like an addictive drug. (2) If the animals are then put on a sugar-free diet they go into withdrawal, with defensive burrowing and anxiety on an elevated plus maze. (3) After two weeks of sugar abstinence, they show enhanced responding for sugar or a sugar-linked cue, indicative of growing motivation for the sugar. They also drink more alcohol than controls. (4) A meal releases ACh that counters DA, but not if the animal’s stomach is drained with a fistula. This appears relevant to bulimia. Judging by the DA and ACh responses in the NAc, sweet foods are especially motivating due to learned nutrition, weight loss, periodic bingeing, purging and abstinence. Grant MH-65024.

note: sections underlined for emphasis by Gaelen.

I'm not convinced that sugar is unilaterally addicting (although I'll concede the potential...I used to buy three for a buck candy bars at the checkout and eat two of them before reaching the car, and need to do it every day and go out of my way to the store with those cheapo candy bars for my daily fix. That 'need' meets more than a couple of the standards for mental, if not physical, addiction. My name is Gaelen, and I'm a chocoholic, and yes, it's still one day at a time. ;)

I'm also not convinced that the use of hyper-sweet artificial sweeteners can unilaterally duplicate the results of this study with sugar...although if I were designing a set of study models to verify these resuts and the hypotheses presented, I'd sure want to get some grant money to do these studies on a large scale with refined sugar, minimally processed natural sugars and ALL of the currently available sweetening agents and artificial sweeteners. That would take, by the conventions currently used for estimating research costs, about 10 million dollars, and approximately five to seven years of research and analysis, assuming that much of the work could be run concurrently. Anybody got a checkbook handy? :tongue:

After 14 years of daily hand-to-hand combat (oops, make that health analysis, maintenance and observation ;)) with mice and other species while conducting pharmaceutical research studies, I completely agree with Gabe that the mouse model is NOT always equal to or truly predictive of the response in humans...but it's WAY easier and cheaper to put 750+ mice into a controlled long-term diet study situation than it is to do the same with an equal number of humans. That said....this study was about the potential of sugar and sweet tastes in general to be addictive--NOT about whether they cause cancer or kill brain cells. ;)

Gaelen, who understands a bit about killing brain cells...and knows from personal experience that there's a much faster way for the bulk of the population than sugar or artificial sweeteners (intracerebral hemorrhage, anyone? :tongue: )

[kevinpa]

Kevin...and anyone else who extrapolated the link LaughingW posted to eationg sucralose = cancer, that is NOT what the study examined, nor is it what the abstract discusses. )

Gaelen, I read the article and understood the abstract. I was injecting a bit of my organic (natural) sarcasm that seems to pop out when I see studies based on the behavior of rats. It is these kinds of studies IMHO that are the reason people are misinformed for years only to be told years later that their assumsion was wrong. Pick a subject, it happens almost every day. My main objection is the people that are persuaded to make choices based on this information because they see as scientific proof when its nothing more than somebody's opinion based on watching some rats.

[Gaelen]

Thanks for the welcome.

You're welcome; it was sincere. I do apologize though...had a perfectly great reply crafted to your post when my english cocker jumped onto my keyboard out of a sound sleep--losing my post, wrecking my 'net connection and shearing off my colon:semi-colon key in the process. Had to go find some super-glue for a quick repair before I could come back...since I regularly type in the code for the winking emoticon, not having a semi-colon is a bit of a PITA. ;)

I admit that I should have indicated that I was using the term "organic" loosely, to refer to produce that does not contain pesticides and, if possible, was not grown with chemical fertilizers.

Yes, Doug, that IS an important distinction, especially in the U.S. where the use of the term 'organic' is regulated, albeit imperfectly. I generally refer to 'sustainably raised without additives' which covers most of what I purchase. In U.S. labeling, 'organic' means something very different...and as Gabe pointed out, it also means something very different in actual science.

When I mentioned cutting superfluous items from one's budget I meant expensive, useless things like ever larger, ever more gas-guzzling vehicles.

Ah, well...I meant the day-to-day budget items upon which an $8 difference in the price of truly ORGANIC versus non-organic avocados, etc., actually does have a direct effect--things like mortgages, medical bills, food budgets, heating/cooling costs for the home, insurance, etc. I drive a five-year-old, paid-for light pickup that gets 30 mpg, focus on Protein Powered vegetarian plus fish eating, maintain a compost pile, grow my own when possible (not THAT...my own veggies!) and accepted in the 70s that 'reduce, reuse, recycle' was the right choice for me...but as Gabe pointed out, this isn't really the place for basically political discussion unless it points on the original topic, which was an examination of how artificial sweeteners and sugar might affect the way humans respond to sweet additives. Heck, there's plenty of politics there that are ON point. ;) Curse that semi-colon key; it's still iffy!!!

Dr. Carl Jung, co-founder with Freud of psychoanalysis, was the first person to discover that the mind and body are inseparable and that whatever affects the one affects the other. He was the forerunner of all holistic thinking since, including holistic medicine and nutrition. All I was suggesting is that the best way to feed the body is the best way to feed the mind, and vice versa, and that you can do both at the same time.

lol...seriously, Doug, you might want to check out a bit of anthropological healing history. While Jung's work was amazing and he did publish information about the mind-body connection that made the concept accessible for moder western medicine, dozens of ancient societies globally, modern and ancient Eastern societies, and their healing practitioners didn't need CJ to tell them that the mind and body are connected. What anthropologists have been able to piece together about native North American, Australian, African and early (I mean REALLY early...) societies in Europe and Asia all point to those societies' healing traditions that recognized and used a mind-body connection and an holistic approach. It just took Western medicine a while to figure that out. Accupuncture, accupressure, tantric yoga, meditation...these things all recognize and utilize mind-body holistic connections, and have been in active practice a loooong time before CJ discovered that he had a gift for analyzing human behavior...and they are recognized and accepted adjuvant healing practices in all of the CCOP (Community Clinical Oncology Practices) and chronic pain clinics with which I'm familiar.

But again, examination of and justification for holistic healing histories are a topic that's more suited to The Break Room than to hijacking this excellent discussion of how sweeteners and sweet tastes affect us.

But I think you missed my point. The best way to change your diet is to examine your life and change everything else about it that you can, and change it in the same direction. Above all see that everything is connected.

Doug, labeling anything 'the best way' is bound to generate discussion, especially in this group. ;) The observed facts are that people often effectively change their diets, at least temporarily, without examining their lives or changing anything more than their menus. Most people following this plan don't take what the Eadeses' consider a purist approach (we've done polls to assess that in all of the incarnations of this board...maybe I should put one up here so that the current community could weigh in), because it's either not financially, mentally or physically possible/accessible to them. The Drs. Eades, by their own admissions, don't typically take a purist approach but do recommend it for people with special metabolic issues.

The beauty of PP is that someone can choose to use unrefined natural or artificially created foods in whatever balance and combination keeps them on plan and 80% of the people who only eliminate transfats, refined carbs and follow the plan at the hedonist level from 30g ECC through 55g ECC will reap all the benefits the program has to offer in health improvement, including weight loss and lipid profile/blood glucose/insulin resistance issues. In the final analysis, that ability to choose and balance options creates the MOST successful change...long term compliance. YMMV. I didn't 'miss your point,' I *agree* with your point...to an extent some people wouldn't do, I live your point. But I do it to the extent that works for me, as others do it to the extent it works for them (maybe not at all) and recognize that the only thing that applies to everyone is that each person needs to individually balance the choices that will help them maintain this long term. Doing that, we can all follow the same plan, and get the same successful results...no judgemental 'best way' required. Again, YMMV.

[mcsblues]

Gaelen, who understands a bit about killing brain cells...and knows from personal experience that there's a much faster way for the bulk of the population than sugar or artificial sweeteners (intracerebral hemorrhage, anyone? :tongue: )

No thanks!

I prefer the fine red wine method - slower, and much more enjoyable.;)

[Gaelen]

No thanks! I prefer the fine red wine method - slower, and much more enjoyable.;)

There you go, Malcolm. :razz:

Kevin, I know that some people prefer to make health decisions primarily based on reports of what other people have experienced and/or their own results, but I prefer a balance of all of those things, and I definitely give a healthy weight advantage to scientific research. Maybe since I'm paid to do research studies, that colors how much weight I give them...but maybe not, since research affected my choices long before I started with my employer of the last 19 years.

The thing is, it's a bit of an over-simplification to class all research studies as "nothing more than somebody's opinion based on watching some rats." It's a heckuva lot more complex than that in a truly meaningful study. Sure, people do behavior-only studies, but in 19 years in a facility that averages 250+ studies per year, where I actively monitored/performed at least 75 of that total every year, I've only done five studies that could be classified as 'behavior/observation only' in my whole career! A few of the rest included a behavior component, and all of them include human observation--but human observation is by no means the only defining parameter for reporting results. Studies often involve multiple species (although I'd much rather catch a naive mouse or rat than a naive non-human primate, I find satisfaction in training handling acceptance/cooperation regardless of species...) and there are actual evaluative tests including bloodwork panels fasting and non-fasting, ECGs, respiratory function, digestive function and neurological function tests performed/analyzed by and on the same lab machines that analyze human results in these same tests; there is gross in-vivo and microscopic tissue evaluation. All of the results are balanced and peer-reviewed by numbers of people far greater than the 2 to 12 hands-on techs who did the original observations, animal handling and test runs with the analytical equipment. If I had a quarter for every time a hands-on observation was dismissed by someone further up the food chain because the analytical results didn't support that observation...well...that happens a lot!

Would it be more accurate if studies about elements of diet were all human to human? Well, sure...but the sign-up volunteer list for human volunteers is pretty limited and a royal PITA to maintain. Most people won't work for 24/7 physical needs maintenance in a totally controlled and stimulation monitored environment. ;)

So the option IMO is to accept that a lot of the science that evaluates diet and chemical interaction and medical issues in the human system has to have an animal component, or it just wouldn't get done...and then we'd all be limited by what we hear about how other people responded, which as laughingW pointed out, is not always reproduceable, and includes a wildly unpredicatable YMMV quotient defined by individual circumstances.

[kevinpa]

The thing is, it's a bit of an over-simplification to class all research studies as "nothing more than somebody's opinion based on watching some rats.".

Yes, it was meant to be an over-simplification. As I said it was my sarcasm popping out again. I don't have the inclination to get into a long-winded debate about scientific research. I'll just go with the flow and try an accept that chocolate and coffee are now health foods.;)

[Mayflowers]

I'd like to say that sugar is not natural. It's a processed chemical from the sugar cane plant that's concentrated into a drug like form. It acts like a drug on the body and causes addiction. Especially when companies put it in everything processed. Combine that with the addicting attributes of grains and you have a real tough item to stop eating.

It may be initially easier to give up white refined sugar at first, but have you noticed most people fall off the wagon and always go back on it some way or another and "justify" having it in their diets? Gaelen would you be so inclined to eat chocolate if it didn't have sugar in it, like baker's chocolate? It's one day at a time for me too. The best part of a cake is the frosting. I could eat it out of a can straight. Don't they say the foods we're allergic to taste the best?

In some people the effect of white refined sugar is worse and I think it has that effect in me. Since I'm allergic to a lot of tropical fruits, sugar cane is a tropical plant, so I get extra bloated when I eat it..

In my opinion the only sugar our bodies can handle is natural fruit. In studies, fruit sugar did not raise glucose levels if eaten in moderation.

I am afraid of splenda also.

[laughingW]

Diana you might enjoy reading the science chapters of Potatoes not Prozac (a book endorsed by the Eades also). It talks about how grains and refined sugars evoke our body's endorphins, and more so in genetically susceptible people.

Basically the deal with allergic things (like wheat) is, the body floods with endorphins to protect from the pain of the irritant. And, if a person genetically has low beta endorphin and a lot of receptors, then.... white bread and sugar feel really, really, feel good. More at radiantrecovery.com

People are on a continuum, so not all people will experience this though, contributing to the disbelief around all this. Those who have never felt it tend to discount it - and to be pushers of "moderation".

[Gaelen]

I'd like to say that sugar is not natural. It's a processed chemical from the sugar cane plant that's concentrated into a drug like form. It acts like a drug on the body and causes addiction.

Mayflowers, *some* sugar (refined white sugar, for example) is refined and processed. Honey, which is also sugar, can be gotten (and eaten) entirely in an unrefined, unprocessed way (the bees do the processing.) Honey is also a sugar, and when it's unrefined and unprocessed, it's a natural substance. That isn't to say that all 'natural' substances are good or can't be harmful in some situations and/or when over-used, but they aren't all the devil, either.

As for things 'causing addiction,' for something to be labelled addictive, it needs to produce uncontrolled, compulsive use despite harm (and there are medical standards that define addiction), and produce that addiction in a defined percentage of people who use the substance. Codiene, morphine, opium all fit these profiles. I'm not personally convinced that sugar and/or grains have demonstrated addictive power on that standard. Addictive behavior (which has a psychological component...entirely differnt from physical dependency...and has different medical standards)...yes, maybe. That's just my opinion, based on what I've read...sugar can produce mentally addictive behavior in me, but true physical dependency? No. YMMV, but if you've time to find some studies that demonstrate sugar's ability to produce physical dependence or mental addictive qualities and rate them on the medically defined scale for addiction...well--that June challenge isn't over yet. ;)

Gaelen would you be so inclined to eat chocolate if it didn't have sugar in it, like baker's chocolate?

Yep. ;) Hershey's baking cocoa, mixed with hot water and cinnamon, has virtually no sugar...and sometimes at the end of a long day, it's the flavor I most want. 99% Cacao bars are a wonderful, if acquired, taste...again, with no sugar added. I like the chocolate, not the sugar.

In my opinion the only sugar our bodies can handle is natural fruit. In studies, fruit sugar did not raise glucose levels if eaten in moderation.

There's a different between eating whole fruit, and eating fructose (refined fruit sugar). Refined fruit sugar is still refined sugar, and it has the same bad effects on the body. It's particularly hard on the liver, because it's metabolized much differently from other sugars.

[laughingW]

I'm not personally convinced that sugar and/or grains have demonstrated physically addictive power on that standard.

How many years will it be before double-blind tests on white powder sweeteners on humans? , oh that would be, not in my lifetime -

Luckily I can read the lit and apply lessons, and not have to wait before staying away from drug-like foods and feeling wonderful while eating very well indeed.

[Mayflowers]

Hi,
I fell asleep. Boy this is the only great thing about being out sick...taking a nap when I want.

Gaelen I was referring to white refined sugar. I believe that raw honey is beneficial to the body in small amounts. That's where I differ from the low carb doctors. Honey has cured my hay fever allergies and I'm supposed to be severely allergic to ragweed. I don't even sneeze in Autumn. Also Gaelen, in your previous post you said:

"I'm not convinced that sugar is unilaterally addicting (although I'll concede the potential...I used to buy three for a buck candy bars at the checkout and eat two of them before reaching the car, and need to do it every day and go out of my way to the store with those cheapo candy bars for my daily fix."

That sounds like an addiction to me. But then again the "caffeine" in chocolate is proven physically addictive so you're either addicted to the white refined sugar, the caffeine or both.
I was not referring to fructose that you buy in the store and use in place of white refined sugar. I was referring to eating a piece of fruit.

I think I'm one of those sensitive people. I read that book Potatoes not Prozac. I didn't want to eat a potato every night. I don't really like potatoes...

[Missy]

I'm bumping this one up too!!!! GOODNESS we certainly DO have SMART people on this board...GOSH! I MISS THEM AND THESE DISCUSSIONS! :D

[maxlharris]

http://www.alive.com/4401a12a2.php

Interesting. Sort of.

So the beef with it seems to be that they don't say: This is sugar, minus oxygen and hydrogen, plus chlorine. Let's suggest that this is about the process behind the product.

If people knew about the process behind a lot of their products, I don't think they would be terribly interested in consuming them. Honey, for example, is the vomit of honey bees. Most packaged grain products, and nuts and all kinds of other things, have an acceptable level of rodent feces that is higher than zero. And if people knew what it takes to keep beef prices where beef prices are (I know and buy with full knowledge), I think beef prices would probably drop due to lack of demand.

The quote I take home from this article is:

the truth is that sucralose has been tested, in more than 100 studies, for the past 20 years and has an unparalleled safety profile.

The author then goes on to undercut this statement, but when you are "a holistic nutritionist," well, we know how the money lays out. Artifice is bad, technology is bad, and old school romanticism is good. I may be cynical, but if this woman suggests that I spend extra for organic broccoli (a scam, since broccoli doesn't take very much pesticide at all), well, we know where she can stick it.

Beware the fillers. That's the real problem.