sucralose and artifical flavors in xtend. how bad
- Thread starter qwerty33
- Start date
SonicSWOLE
Member
WilteredFire
Member
No offense to any companys here but i Doubt company reps/owners are going to honestly answer the question on dangers of these sweeteners. If they knew or had bothered to put some time into studying the dangers of them I doubt they would use them. Anyway, heres a little testimonial from a person on a site about his sides he experienced with Sucralose...
Before anyone gives me the "you always get one person who reacts badly to everything" crock of crap, the info was from this page with other testimonials...Invalid Link Removed
go into there other sucralose pages or i'll try dig up some more facts about sucralose since I doubt you can have a convo anywhere about dangers of artificial sweeteners without someone pulling the "lets not have any conspiracy theories" bunch of tripe out from nowhere. Another thing some people should understand is because it may not be killing them immediately, does not mean its damaging properties are not being accumulated in a persons body.
I'll see if I can share some more facts on this later as "opinions on sucralose" aren't really going to cut it for pretty much anyone without somebody giving the conspiracy theory comment
Before anyone gives me the "you always get one person who reacts badly to everything" crock of crap, the info was from this page with other testimonials...Invalid Link Removed
go into there other sucralose pages or i'll try dig up some more facts about sucralose since I doubt you can have a convo anywhere about dangers of artificial sweeteners without someone pulling the "lets not have any conspiracy theories" bunch of tripe out from nowhere. Another thing some people should understand is because it may not be killing them immediately, does not mean its damaging properties are not being accumulated in a persons body.
I'll see if I can share some more facts on this later as "opinions on sucralose" aren't really going to cut it for pretty much anyone without somebody giving the conspiracy theory comment
dumbhick3
Member
I used to be a skeptic about sucralose toxicity...
I used a lot of protein powders in college before sucralose came onto the scene and pretty much became one of the unholy trinity members of the sweeteners of almost every powdered anything nowadays. Those older sweeteners are apparently not great for you either (acesulfame K, aspartame). I never seemed to have a major reaction to the older "bodybuilding.com" protein powder formulas though I bought by the 10 lb bag.
Then sucralose came out in packets for coffee and in virtually every powdered supp that needs sweetening now. It's pros are obvious. It tastes more like sugar than any previous sweetener and you can even cook with it without breaking down the molecule (like sugar, unlike other art. sweet.) and it has no carbs/calories (like I care). So I used the packets with my coffee for a while in college-no problems, but didn't use more than a box or two.
Around the same time, my Mom started using the packets daily with her coffee and after a while, she started to get many of the effects that literally thousands of people attest to (those who are sensitive to toxicity from this substance). Worsened arthritis, mental fogginess (which only complicates things b/c you don't connect the sucralose to the symptoms until you read or hear about identical symptoms), and zombie-like drowsiness (never rested enough; would fall asleep an hour after getting up and moving around).
Well I started doing some research and was appalled (and she was too). The symptoms described by so many matched hers exactly. There are thousands of people who have reported toxicity from sucra, even more than the older ones. Several letters have been written to the FDA, but they have fallen on deaf ears. I also noted while doing art. sweetener research that in the cases of aspartame, acesulfame K, and sucralose, the FDA decided to allow them to be marketed as art sweeteners AGAINST the recommendation of their own board of physicians in all three cases. It was also noted that several of the persons approving the decision at the FDA went on to high-ranking jobs ($) at the company that makes aspartame (Monsieur something or other-multi-billion dollar company) after their 3 year waiting period after leaving the FDA was up. It has been a while since I researched this, so this is my best recollection.
A parallel phenomenon is that the FDA has repeatedly stopped Stevia from being approved as a sweetener (and it is the only natural one in the whole group!) and to this day, it cannot be labeled as such (it must be sold as a dietary supplement proper and they are very anal about this). However, there is one place online I know of that allows you to use Stevia in your protein and MRP/etc powders as a sweetener (and I use them). Also, you can obviously buy bottles of stevia and extract liquids online. No, it doesn't taste exactly like sugar or even sucralose, but at least it is safer (IMO) and calorie free for those who care (and potent-comes with a "coke" spoon). And funnily enough, they now sell splenda packets on the dietary supplement aisle (like coffee sized packets).
There is a lot of BS with the FDA here because I found a letter online that had some parts blacked out (the name of the company that makes aspartame), but when splenda leaves and powder started to be imported into the US (the nineties I think), said company wrote a complaning letter to the FDA that in effect said their sales were hurting because of this product. The FDA started seizing shipments of leaves and powders at the Mexico border (I think most is grown in South America). They don't seize them anymore, but their position has remained firm that it is not an approved AS and cannot be sold as such (might be dangerous, LOL). The fact is, the AS industry is a multi-billion dollar a year industry (supported by fat people and bodybuilders and fat bodybuilders largely I imagine, no pun intended).
So back to my Mom, when I told her about this, she stopped using sucra immediately, and within a week or two, she was back to normal. But if she has even one serving of it now, she gets instant toxicity symptoms (and they resolve about as quick if she stops immediately). So she reads labels carefully now b/c they try to put sucra in d@mn near everything today (flavored water, etc-JUST DRINK WATER-it is good for you).
And now, my own experience with sucra. About a year ago, I started chugging muscle milk and myoplex protein drinks (by the case). Well, as seems to be the case with sucra, there is a loading phase before any chronic toxicity seems to develop (in my case ~6-9 months of daily use). Suddenly, I was in a mental fog all the time, I worked from home a lot anyway, and I would wake up, start working, and within an hour get so light-headed and tired, I would have to sit in my recliner and sleep for another hour just to keep from dropping my laptop on the ground. I guess due not researching them in so long + the mental fog, it took me about a month to say, could it be the sucra? Sure enough, after stopping all intake (garbage can) for 1-2 weeks, I was fine and back to normal. My symptoms and resolution largely paralleled my Mom's and most of what I have read from others.
If you can tolerate sucra, then fine and good for you-as you were:trink26:. If you think I and a few thousand other people are just full of it, again, drink on (I don't care what anyone else does if it doesn't involve me). But sucra chronic toxicity is very real to those who are suceptible to it. That's all I've got:soapbox:.
I used a lot of protein powders in college before sucralose came onto the scene and pretty much became one of the unholy trinity members of the sweeteners of almost every powdered anything nowadays. Those older sweeteners are apparently not great for you either (acesulfame K, aspartame). I never seemed to have a major reaction to the older "bodybuilding.com" protein powder formulas though I bought by the 10 lb bag.
Then sucralose came out in packets for coffee and in virtually every powdered supp that needs sweetening now. It's pros are obvious. It tastes more like sugar than any previous sweetener and you can even cook with it without breaking down the molecule (like sugar, unlike other art. sweet.) and it has no carbs/calories (like I care). So I used the packets with my coffee for a while in college-no problems, but didn't use more than a box or two.
Around the same time, my Mom started using the packets daily with her coffee and after a while, she started to get many of the effects that literally thousands of people attest to (those who are sensitive to toxicity from this substance). Worsened arthritis, mental fogginess (which only complicates things b/c you don't connect the sucralose to the symptoms until you read or hear about identical symptoms), and zombie-like drowsiness (never rested enough; would fall asleep an hour after getting up and moving around).
Well I started doing some research and was appalled (and she was too). The symptoms described by so many matched hers exactly. There are thousands of people who have reported toxicity from sucra, even more than the older ones. Several letters have been written to the FDA, but they have fallen on deaf ears. I also noted while doing art. sweetener research that in the cases of aspartame, acesulfame K, and sucralose, the FDA decided to allow them to be marketed as art sweeteners AGAINST the recommendation of their own board of physicians in all three cases. It was also noted that several of the persons approving the decision at the FDA went on to high-ranking jobs ($) at the company that makes aspartame (Monsieur something or other-multi-billion dollar company) after their 3 year waiting period after leaving the FDA was up. It has been a while since I researched this, so this is my best recollection.
A parallel phenomenon is that the FDA has repeatedly stopped Stevia from being approved as a sweetener (and it is the only natural one in the whole group!) and to this day, it cannot be labeled as such (it must be sold as a dietary supplement proper and they are very anal about this). However, there is one place online I know of that allows you to use Stevia in your protein and MRP/etc powders as a sweetener (and I use them). Also, you can obviously buy bottles of stevia and extract liquids online. No, it doesn't taste exactly like sugar or even sucralose, but at least it is safer (IMO) and calorie free for those who care (and potent-comes with a "coke" spoon). And funnily enough, they now sell splenda packets on the dietary supplement aisle (like coffee sized packets).
There is a lot of BS with the FDA here because I found a letter online that had some parts blacked out (the name of the company that makes aspartame), but when splenda leaves and powder started to be imported into the US (the nineties I think), said company wrote a complaning letter to the FDA that in effect said their sales were hurting because of this product. The FDA started seizing shipments of leaves and powders at the Mexico border (I think most is grown in South America). They don't seize them anymore, but their position has remained firm that it is not an approved AS and cannot be sold as such (might be dangerous, LOL). The fact is, the AS industry is a multi-billion dollar a year industry (supported by fat people and bodybuilders and fat bodybuilders largely I imagine, no pun intended).
So back to my Mom, when I told her about this, she stopped using sucra immediately, and within a week or two, she was back to normal. But if she has even one serving of it now, she gets instant toxicity symptoms (and they resolve about as quick if she stops immediately). So she reads labels carefully now b/c they try to put sucra in d@mn near everything today (flavored water, etc-JUST DRINK WATER-it is good for you).
And now, my own experience with sucra. About a year ago, I started chugging muscle milk and myoplex protein drinks (by the case). Well, as seems to be the case with sucra, there is a loading phase before any chronic toxicity seems to develop (in my case ~6-9 months of daily use). Suddenly, I was in a mental fog all the time, I worked from home a lot anyway, and I would wake up, start working, and within an hour get so light-headed and tired, I would have to sit in my recliner and sleep for another hour just to keep from dropping my laptop on the ground. I guess due not researching them in so long + the mental fog, it took me about a month to say, could it be the sucra? Sure enough, after stopping all intake (garbage can) for 1-2 weeks, I was fine and back to normal. My symptoms and resolution largely paralleled my Mom's and most of what I have read from others.
If you can tolerate sucra, then fine and good for you-as you were:trink26:. If you think I and a few thousand other people are just full of it, again, drink on (I don't care what anyone else does if it doesn't involve me). But sucra chronic toxicity is very real to those who are suceptible to it. That's all I've got:soapbox:.
Kristofer68SS
Well-known member
I got headaches when I was dosing xtend 2-3 times a day.
Switched over to Controlled Labs PW's EAA's and never looked back.
I will be transitioning into RecoverPro when the PW runs out. (nearly 3 tubs left)
Switched over to Controlled Labs PW's EAA's and never looked back.
I will be transitioning into RecoverPro when the PW runs out. (nearly 3 tubs left)
SonicSWOLE
Member
No offense to any companys here but i Doubt company reps/owners are going to honestly answer the question on dangers of these sweeteners. If they knew or had bothered to put some time into studying the dangers of them I doubt they would use them. Anyway, heres a little testimonial from a person on a site about his sides he experienced with Sucralose...
Before anyone gives me the "you always get one person who reacts badly to everything" crock of crap, the info was from this page with other testimonials...Invalid Link Removed
go into there other sucralose pages or i'll try dig up some more facts about sucralose since I doubt you can have a convo anywhere about dangers of artificial sweeteners without someone pulling the "lets not have any conspiracy theories" bunch of tripe out from nowhere. Another thing some people should understand is because it may not be killing them immediately, does not mean its damaging properties are not being accumulated in a persons body.
I'll see if I can share some more facts on this later as "opinions on sucralose" aren't really going to cut it for pretty much anyone without somebody giving the conspiracy theory comment
Your post is exremely funny and highly entertaining since the sweetener in Diet Pepsi is Apartame. Pepsi Max(also suger free) is Aspartame and Acesulfame Potassium! NO Sucralose.
Diet Pepsi 12oz.:
Caffeine (mg) 35
Potassium (mg) 30
Phosphorous (mg) 41
Acesulfame Potassium (mg) 0
Aspartame (mg) 177
Sucralose (mg) 0
Pepsi Max 12 oz.:
Caffeine (mg) 69
Potassium (mg) 35
Phosphorous (mg) 53
Acesulfame Potassium (mg) 32
Aspartame (mg) 123
Sucralose (mg) 0
Pepsi One, however, does contain Sucralose...but was not referenced and, well, who really drinks that anyway?
Oh you have me LMAO!!!! Check your own facts first.
Libertarian
Active member
Toxicity and health issue aside, I think Stevia is the best tasting sweetener. Aspartame and Sucralose have this strange chemical aftertaste. Stevia typically has an aftertaste as well, but it doesn't taste like chemicals. I did find one brand, though, called NuNatruals. Their Stevia has the least noticeable aftertaste of all the brands I stopped noticing it completely after using it for a while. It's about $20 for a canister of it, but it lasts a long time because a tiny bit goes a LONG way.
When it comes to toxicity, I'm not easily convinced with anecdotal reports that I find on the internet. For me to be convinced that any of these sweeteners are dangerous, I'd have to see some peer-reviewed research.
When it comes to toxicity, I'm not easily convinced with anecdotal reports that I find on the internet. For me to be convinced that any of these sweeteners are dangerous, I'd have to see some peer-reviewed research.
dumbhick3
Member
The aftertaste from art sweetners is usually due to the molecular size-the molecules are small enough to briefly get lodged in your taste buds-hence the bitter aftertaste.
Not peer reviewed, but a 2008 report from Duke University on Splenda (so far from anecdotal either):
Here is one real study for you (can't post links yet; haven't posted 50 threads yet-I guess I better think of 42 threads to quickly post so I can finally post links. Sorry mods, I think this policy sucks-it keeps out spammers, but not everyone is a postaholic or even has time to post much-esp if they are following forum etiquette and doing more reading than writing like myself):
Something else to consider is just how new Splenda is (less than 10 years on the market). So naturally you aren't going to find dozens of academic studies on the harmful effects of it. What should set off alarms is how long it took before aspartame chronic toxicity reports began to appear (it is a 30 yr old product) and look at how many thousands of people have been complaining about splenda toxicity in the short time it has been on the market. Aside from research, you can be skeptical all you want-for anyone who has experienced splenda toxicity knows that it is no joke and the fact that it goes away after a few weeks of stopping use makes cause and effect pretty clear for those afflicted. If you aren't affected by it in your lifetime, more power to you.
More articles/sources:
Another page where I can't post the the link-if anybody actually gives a damn about splenda toxicity, they can take .5 minutes to Google it themselves. If not, then save your .5 minutes. It will take me about 6 months to get enough posts to be able to post links, and I am not here to evangelize the world of artificial sweeteners. I don't care if someone likes to drink H2SO4 18 molar for breakfast-it is their business and not mine. I am just posting opinions and info (to reiterate). Just don't make concentrated sulfuric acid a standard ingredient in liquid protein shakes in case some of us want to live past breakfast (to use an extreme and absurd example). Give me the option to choose say dilute phosphoric acid (as in Coca Cola) if I prefer that.
Food additives don't have to go through a very rigorous process to be FDA approved versus drugs OTOH. And of course they screwed up royally with the more rigorous drug approvals for Vioxx and Bextra. Incompetence and conflicts of interest abound. My Mom was taking the latter drug before it was taken off the market voluntarily by the manufacturer and she started to develop Stevens-Johnsons Syndrome (a potentially fatal skin disorder), had erythemia multiformae (similar), and had her tongue was 2 different shades of color (half-red, half-pink).
The FDA isn't good at much except banning PHs/DSs, and they kind of suck at doing that (not a bad thing necessarily)-they have to get a (notice the word/letter "a") report that some 17 yr old kid has toxic hepatitis b/c he took pheraplex for 6 weeks and then its on the upcoming ban list. Oh and athletes were using it undetected and we all know how much Congress hates it when pro athletes use steroids-reference the MLB hearings-"I love baseball" "I don't love baseball, baseball is a PASSION to me"-SO WHAT!-baseball would have died if not for steroids and McGwire breaking the HR record and rekindling interest in a boring, dying sport where the players were always going on strike because their 250 million/10 year deals weren't good enough-F em and F baseball anyway-just my opinion of that silly sport. Some isolated report of kidney issues-"oh, time to ban x-tren/trenadrol/19-nor-estra, etc". "Oh there are more? We better ban those next year when Congress is back in session. Time to go to my mansion and get blown by a hooker before the wife gets home. What a busy day. I worked 4 hours-I'm beat."
Of course, when you get thousands of reports and lawsuits and several letters written to the FDA requesting that Splenda come with a warning label or be taken off the market, well, nothing happens. It takes a sample size of 0-1 for a PH/DS to get banned, but an equally unofficial sample size of thousands can't get a single artificial sweetener banned or at least include a warning label (or better yet, encourage companies to make more powdered supps that don't have sucralose in them-let the consumer choose-and put Stevia on the menu as an FDA approved, safe, natural sweetener.
Avoiding splenda packets is easy enough-don't buy them! But they put it in damn near everything nowadays so that you have to read the label and look for sucralose (if you are like me and sensitive to it and I am not alone) so you can avoid it. That is the irritating part-some great new supplement comes out-oh, it has sucralose in it, too bad.
And why is the FDA afraid of all natural splenda? Because it works and some people like it and being natural, you can't patent it, make conflicting interest agreements with multi-billion dollar supp companies, and use crappy research methods to approve the food additive. I also remember reading something to the effect that something like 40 of Coca Cola in Japan uses Stevia. That would hurt the sugar industry and the AS industry and they are already at war with each other (sugar comps have lawsuits because of all the splenda-"just like sugar" comparisons which isn't true, especially since Splenda is a chlorinated carbohydrate more similar in structure to DDT instead of sugar). And one of its metabolites has been demonstrated to be a carcinogen in lab rats (1,6 sucralose I think)-liver tumors specifically.
I guess my main point is that the FDA hampers the ability of the consumer to choose what sweetener they want to use by continuing to not allow Stevia to be marketed as a sweetener (and the supp companies could add it in instead of sucralose if they wanted to but they don't-just call it another supp ingredient and it's good to go-but why, everyone likes Splenda?). The FDA also throws caution to the wind due to vested interests and then the pleas of those affected are ignored. That is truly irritating and hypocritical. Only pharmaceutical companies/mfgs should have any interest in whether an unpatentable natural sweetner ever comes on the scene in mass (and they do)-NOT the FDA. But they do, so it is clear that our health is low priority in their eyes in this particular area as well as some others (like the COX-2 inhibitors).
Regarding Pepsi-what-the-hell-ever, aspartame isn't any better than splenda. People have literally died from the neurotoxic effects of excessive aspartame consumption over a long period of time. And no, I don't have the autopsy results.
I guess Acesulfame K gets a pass:
Not peer reviewed, but a 2008 report from Duke University on Splenda (so far from anecdotal either):
Here is one real study for you (can't post links yet; haven't posted 50 threads yet-I guess I better think of 42 threads to quickly post so I can finally post links. Sorry mods, I think this policy sucks-it keeps out spammers, but not everyone is a postaholic or even has time to post much-esp if they are following forum etiquette and doing more reading than writing like myself):
Something else to consider is just how new Splenda is (less than 10 years on the market). So naturally you aren't going to find dozens of academic studies on the harmful effects of it. What should set off alarms is how long it took before aspartame chronic toxicity reports began to appear (it is a 30 yr old product) and look at how many thousands of people have been complaining about splenda toxicity in the short time it has been on the market. Aside from research, you can be skeptical all you want-for anyone who has experienced splenda toxicity knows that it is no joke and the fact that it goes away after a few weeks of stopping use makes cause and effect pretty clear for those afflicted. If you aren't affected by it in your lifetime, more power to you.
More articles/sources:
Another page where I can't post the the link-if anybody actually gives a damn about splenda toxicity, they can take .5 minutes to Google it themselves. If not, then save your .5 minutes. It will take me about 6 months to get enough posts to be able to post links, and I am not here to evangelize the world of artificial sweeteners. I don't care if someone likes to drink H2SO4 18 molar for breakfast-it is their business and not mine. I am just posting opinions and info (to reiterate). Just don't make concentrated sulfuric acid a standard ingredient in liquid protein shakes in case some of us want to live past breakfast (to use an extreme and absurd example). Give me the option to choose say dilute phosphoric acid (as in Coca Cola) if I prefer that.
Food additives don't have to go through a very rigorous process to be FDA approved versus drugs OTOH. And of course they screwed up royally with the more rigorous drug approvals for Vioxx and Bextra. Incompetence and conflicts of interest abound. My Mom was taking the latter drug before it was taken off the market voluntarily by the manufacturer and she started to develop Stevens-Johnsons Syndrome (a potentially fatal skin disorder), had erythemia multiformae (similar), and had her tongue was 2 different shades of color (half-red, half-pink).
The FDA isn't good at much except banning PHs/DSs, and they kind of suck at doing that (not a bad thing necessarily)-they have to get a (notice the word/letter "a") report that some 17 yr old kid has toxic hepatitis b/c he took pheraplex for 6 weeks and then its on the upcoming ban list. Oh and athletes were using it undetected and we all know how much Congress hates it when pro athletes use steroids-reference the MLB hearings-"I love baseball" "I don't love baseball, baseball is a PASSION to me"-SO WHAT!-baseball would have died if not for steroids and McGwire breaking the HR record and rekindling interest in a boring, dying sport where the players were always going on strike because their 250 million/10 year deals weren't good enough-F em and F baseball anyway-just my opinion of that silly sport. Some isolated report of kidney issues-"oh, time to ban x-tren/trenadrol/19-nor-estra, etc". "Oh there are more? We better ban those next year when Congress is back in session. Time to go to my mansion and get blown by a hooker before the wife gets home. What a busy day. I worked 4 hours-I'm beat."
Of course, when you get thousands of reports and lawsuits and several letters written to the FDA requesting that Splenda come with a warning label or be taken off the market, well, nothing happens. It takes a sample size of 0-1 for a PH/DS to get banned, but an equally unofficial sample size of thousands can't get a single artificial sweetener banned or at least include a warning label (or better yet, encourage companies to make more powdered supps that don't have sucralose in them-let the consumer choose-and put Stevia on the menu as an FDA approved, safe, natural sweetener.
Avoiding splenda packets is easy enough-don't buy them! But they put it in damn near everything nowadays so that you have to read the label and look for sucralose (if you are like me and sensitive to it and I am not alone) so you can avoid it. That is the irritating part-some great new supplement comes out-oh, it has sucralose in it, too bad.
And why is the FDA afraid of all natural splenda? Because it works and some people like it and being natural, you can't patent it, make conflicting interest agreements with multi-billion dollar supp companies, and use crappy research methods to approve the food additive. I also remember reading something to the effect that something like 40 of Coca Cola in Japan uses Stevia. That would hurt the sugar industry and the AS industry and they are already at war with each other (sugar comps have lawsuits because of all the splenda-"just like sugar" comparisons which isn't true, especially since Splenda is a chlorinated carbohydrate more similar in structure to DDT instead of sugar). And one of its metabolites has been demonstrated to be a carcinogen in lab rats (1,6 sucralose I think)-liver tumors specifically.
I guess my main point is that the FDA hampers the ability of the consumer to choose what sweetener they want to use by continuing to not allow Stevia to be marketed as a sweetener (and the supp companies could add it in instead of sucralose if they wanted to but they don't-just call it another supp ingredient and it's good to go-but why, everyone likes Splenda?). The FDA also throws caution to the wind due to vested interests and then the pleas of those affected are ignored. That is truly irritating and hypocritical. Only pharmaceutical companies/mfgs should have any interest in whether an unpatentable natural sweetner ever comes on the scene in mass (and they do)-NOT the FDA. But they do, so it is clear that our health is low priority in their eyes in this particular area as well as some others (like the COX-2 inhibitors).
Regarding Pepsi-what-the-hell-ever, aspartame isn't any better than splenda. People have literally died from the neurotoxic effects of excessive aspartame consumption over a long period of time. And no, I don't have the autopsy results.
I guess Acesulfame K gets a pass:
SonicSWOLE
Member
dumbhick3
Member
Yes-my Mom and one of my aunts are diabetic. My Mom uses stevia BTW or stevia with a very small amount of sucrose as a sweetener. Anyways, I lost my taste for simple sugars after I quit smoking weed in college. Personally, I tend to order proteinfactory powders with stevia and met-rx big 100 bars which have crystalline fructose (a medium-low GI sugar compared to a very high GI sucrose) and sugar alcohols in them. I am constipated half the time for some reason, so I don't even notice the sorbitol or whatever. In either case, they are both safer than artificial sweeteners and their negative insulin effects are minimal.
Most bodybuilders aren't concerned about the health effects of sucrose. They just want easier control over their simple carb intake-->enter the supp industry.
It also seems like the majority of bodybuilders downplay any risks from AS's (not AAS, though they do that too). I have seen it on other msg boards like bodybuildingcom. I just wanted to suggest that not only have I personally experienced severe effects from splenda (and my mom), but many others too. Whether you choose sugar, lead, arsenic, splenda, stevia, or aspartame for your sweetening needs is up to you. It's a risk/benefit assessment that every person has to do for themselves and every one is different in how they react to different substances (ref. steroids and supplements alike).
[Yawn] It's 2AM; a lack of sleep is dangerous, or so I hear, so I am turning in for the night.
Most bodybuilders aren't concerned about the health effects of sucrose. They just want easier control over their simple carb intake-->enter the supp industry.
It also seems like the majority of bodybuilders downplay any risks from AS's (not AAS, though they do that too). I have seen it on other msg boards like bodybuildingcom. I just wanted to suggest that not only have I personally experienced severe effects from splenda (and my mom), but many others too. Whether you choose sugar, lead, arsenic, splenda, stevia, or aspartame for your sweetening needs is up to you. It's a risk/benefit assessment that every person has to do for themselves and every one is different in how they react to different substances (ref. steroids and supplements alike).
[Yawn] It's 2AM; a lack of sleep is dangerous, or so I hear, so I am turning in for the night.
dumbhick3
Member
Try "SunCrystals"-advertised at the top of this page. My Mom swears by these. They have splenda and the equivalent of about 1 gram/4 calories of sucrose in a packet. The blend helps offset the kind of dull stevia taste. And you are correct that it becomes more pronounced in coffee. I haven't tried the SunCrystals because I don't have a need for them or coffee, but they are worth a shot and still provide less simple carbs than a fat spoon of sugar. I guess they took a que from the supp companies and started trying a synergistic blend of more than one sweetner so that one can mask the shortcomings of the other (which is why most protein powders have 2 or 3 AS's in them).
ctAL
Member
airram479
Member
I am in the same boat as Kristofer regarding the headaches. I am up around 200 lbs. at that weight they say take 6scoops. By the time i get done with my workout i am having sharp,tension-like headaches.Never had that problem when i was taking PW either,i might just say fck-it,throw it away and by some more PW.
Lacradocious
Member
Good Post.
I also will be buying more natural products in the future. I am going to switch to Primordial Performance BCAA's once my Xtend runs out. The PP BCAA's have no fillers or sweeteners. Xtend has Glutamine added in, which is pointless imo, but does have CM but I get that as a bulk powder.
The cost per gram for the Primordial BCAA's is less, as you get 1000 grams of pure BCAA's with no fillers or additives. Using Nutra's current pricing and taking into consideration the Xtend current sale price:
Xtend 630 grams BCAA total (subtracting Glutamine, fillers, CM) = 6.82 cents per gram
Primordial Performance 1000 grams BCAA = 5.7 cents per gram
This isn't to knock Xtend, I am very happy with the product. I am just avoiding food dye's, artificial flavors/sweeteners. I plan to add my own CM or whatever else to it. I am also switching to protein with no artificial fillers/sweeteners/flavors as well.
I also will be buying more natural products in the future. I am going to switch to Primordial Performance BCAA's once my Xtend runs out. The PP BCAA's have no fillers or sweeteners. Xtend has Glutamine added in, which is pointless imo, but does have CM but I get that as a bulk powder.
The cost per gram for the Primordial BCAA's is less, as you get 1000 grams of pure BCAA's with no fillers or additives. Using Nutra's current pricing and taking into consideration the Xtend current sale price:
Xtend 630 grams BCAA total (subtracting Glutamine, fillers, CM) = 6.82 cents per gram
Primordial Performance 1000 grams BCAA = 5.7 cents per gram
This isn't to knock Xtend, I am very happy with the product. I am just avoiding food dye's, artificial flavors/sweeteners. I plan to add my own CM or whatever else to it. I am also switching to protein with no artificial fillers/sweeteners/flavors as well.
dumbhick3
Member
I have been using IBCAAs from PP for a while and they are great. Aminojin is the only company that makes instantized BCAAs and PP and Proteinfactory are the only two places I have seen it. I get the 1 kilo tub of iBCAAs from PP for $45 which is a good deal considering the expense of instantized BCAAs. I also get the vitaberry from PP which has tons of freeze dried fruit powder with a little stevia and some other natural sweetner and a scoop of that makes 10g of BCAAs taste good (could use 1/2 scoop to save $ as a thing of vitaberry is ~$43 but well worth it-I use it for all my bulk supps-it is tart and chock full of antioxidants).
Glutamine is a proven anti-catabolic (qualitatively speaking, but BCAAs blow Glutamine away if you have to choose one). But I've found that some people don't respond well to creatine and likewise for glutamine and vice versa. So it is more helpful to some them others. I use Glutamine SR (MHP-$40 for a 3 month supply-lasts 12 hours) powder and Con-Cret creatine capsules ($40 a month isn't great, but this stuff is amazing).
I am hooked on PP's products b/c even though they are expensive they are top-notch and all except for the new Liqua-vale products are AS free. The latter uses Splenda, so I will stick with the transdermal equivalents.
Glutamine is a proven anti-catabolic (qualitatively speaking, but BCAAs blow Glutamine away if you have to choose one). But I've found that some people don't respond well to creatine and likewise for glutamine and vice versa. So it is more helpful to some them others. I use Glutamine SR (MHP-$40 for a 3 month supply-lasts 12 hours) powder and Con-Cret creatine capsules ($40 a month isn't great, but this stuff is amazing).
I am hooked on PP's products b/c even though they are expensive they are top-notch and all except for the new Liqua-vale products are AS free. The latter uses Splenda, so I will stick with the transdermal equivalents.
Lacradocious
Member
I don't think Glutamine is pointless, I just think it is pointless to have it in a BCAA product. Most protein comes with a bunch of it in there anyway, and in addition to that, I have some bulk Glutamine from NP I can add in whenever I want.
dumbhick3
Member
Glutamine
I think it doesn't make sense to take Glutamine at the same time (time = hour of the day) as BCAAs because BCAAs are the most competitive amino acids and can get preferential treatment over other aminos (they go to your muscles first kind of competitively), so to speak. I take Glutamine with protein shakes but generally not with my BCAAs. The empty/full stomach thing doesn't matter IMO. The problem with glutamine is that it is poorly absorbed like creatine mono (except you can boost mono with carbs) so you have to mega-dose it at 10-20g+ a day to get any effect (if you get any effect). As someone pointed out, protein shakes are loaded with glutamine anyway (it's generally the most abundant amino in protein powder at 10+g/serving of PP). Also, it only stays in your system about 2 hours post-ingestion. So some people like it for post-workout recovery drink mixes though again BCAAs win if you have to choose-some people can't afford or don't bother with BCAAs at the doses needed 10-20g/day spread over the day. And if you go with BCAAs, anything other than instantized will be quite a pain in the neck to take (take 20 capsules a day?). Non-instantized does not mix well if at all with a spoon and the taste is very acidic (true for instantized also which is why you should get some vitaberry or something to offset the taste).
I think it doesn't make sense to take Glutamine at the same time (time = hour of the day) as BCAAs because BCAAs are the most competitive amino acids and can get preferential treatment over other aminos (they go to your muscles first kind of competitively), so to speak. I take Glutamine with protein shakes but generally not with my BCAAs. The empty/full stomach thing doesn't matter IMO. The problem with glutamine is that it is poorly absorbed like creatine mono (except you can boost mono with carbs) so you have to mega-dose it at 10-20g+ a day to get any effect (if you get any effect). As someone pointed out, protein shakes are loaded with glutamine anyway (it's generally the most abundant amino in protein powder at 10+g/serving of PP). Also, it only stays in your system about 2 hours post-ingestion. So some people like it for post-workout recovery drink mixes though again BCAAs win if you have to choose-some people can't afford or don't bother with BCAAs at the doses needed 10-20g/day spread over the day. And if you go with BCAAs, anything other than instantized will be quite a pain in the neck to take (take 20 capsules a day?). Non-instantized does not mix well if at all with a spoon and the taste is very acidic (true for instantized also which is why you should get some vitaberry or something to offset the taste).
Athletix
Board Sponsor
The post above was taken slightly out of context. The article refers to p-gp and unless you are a pharmacologist or are in a similar field it is tough to understand the mechanisms and the reasoning behind that article. PGP actually stands for p-glycoprotein, it was actually originally called the multiple drug resistance transporter because it was one of the reasons chemo drugs were ineffective, the cells would pump the drug back out of the cell. PGP shows up mostly in the gut and taking inhibitors of PGP will increase plasma concentrations or vice versa.
This isn't a problem unless you are taking a medication that works through the PGP pathway such as digoxin and others. Bottom line is, if you are healthy and aren't taking a lot of pharmaceuticals and you aren't consuming massive amounts of sweetener at any given time there shouldn't be much of an issue.
There will be many attempts to demonize these products but the bottom line is if you switched everyone from artificial sweeteners to regular sugar you would see an increased incidence of type 2 diabetes, which is a much larger concern right now than lowered plasma concentrations of drugs.
This isn't a problem unless you are taking a medication that works through the PGP pathway such as digoxin and others. Bottom line is, if you are healthy and aren't taking a lot of pharmaceuticals and you aren't consuming massive amounts of sweetener at any given time there shouldn't be much of an issue.
There will be many attempts to demonize these products but the bottom line is if you switched everyone from artificial sweeteners to regular sugar you would see an increased incidence of type 2 diabetes, which is a much larger concern right now than lowered plasma concentrations of drugs.
JudoJosh
Pro Virili Parte
y not go to scivation.com they have forums where the owners will be more then glad to answer any questions. I been on there when I had questions about the ebooks and they are more then willing to help. Really great guys..
I havent been over there in a whiiillleee since I found AM and feel in love
I havent been over there in a whiiillleee since I found AM and feel in love
pcproffy
New member
Sugar doesn't cause diabetes. However, the calories in sugar can. No different than the calories in fat or protein.
Isn't it funny how the people drinking diet sodas are fat? Obviously they are still getting the calories somewhere else. I'm sure everyone has heard by now that sweeteners might affect metabolism and satiety, go ahead and google satiety you meat heads
Athletix
Board Sponsor
Sugar doesn't cause diabetes. However, the calories in sugar can. No different than the calories in fat or protein.
Isn't it funny how the people drinking diet sodas are fat? Obviously they are still getting the calories somewhere else. I'm sure everyone has heard by now that sweeteners might affect metabolism and satiety, go ahead and google satiety you meat heads
No actually the sugar, due to insulin spikes, AND the calories, causes type 2 diabetes. You eventually develop insulin resistance and other comorbid conditions such as obesity, typically termed metabolic syndrome, which eventually turns into an irreversible state of Type 2 DM.
However, your argument about why people drinking diet sodas are fat can be answered two fold. One reason is because some people who are obese might be trying to lose weight. However, studies done on diet drinks found that your body gears up for sugar metabolism when drinking a diet soda. When your body realizes that no calories were actually obtained it creates more hunger, typically more so than before and it leads to overeating. This is one of the reasons that studies showing diet vs. non-diet drinks are not leaning one way or the other. There is no significant differences between the two groups sadly.
Athletix
Board Sponsor
It is good that you figured that out, most people don't especially when it comes to things like migraines. Everyone is different though so people just need to assess these things themselves. There haven't been enough long term studies on these compounds to say whether there are long term implications but they do very high dose studies on animals and typically they don't show anything too significant other than what is expected.
Hardnutcheck
Member
I take Intrabolic and Myofusion which both contain sucralose.
The way things are made now, it's very difficult to avoid such things.
The way things are made now, it's very difficult to avoid such things.
mc2000
New member
I started a thread 2 weeks ago on this same topic.... Companies have to start looking into using Stevia as a sweetner and NATURAL colorings if they feel most adult men need supplements to look and taste like candy.
Most serious bodybuilders are used to a more bland diet anyway and some of these powders are WAY too sweet. Also having to scrub purple dyes out of my shaker bottle after drinking cant be a good sigh either.... SUPP COMPANIES your customers and potential customers are letting you know what we want.... Aspartame and Sucralose are 100% dealbreakers for me as is Red Dye #40....
Most serious bodybuilders are used to a more bland diet anyway and some of these powders are WAY too sweet. Also having to scrub purple dyes out of my shaker bottle after drinking cant be a good sigh either.... SUPP COMPANIES your customers and potential customers are letting you know what we want.... Aspartame and Sucralose are 100% dealbreakers for me as is Red Dye #40....
noot
Member
Honestly, is real sugar really that expensive?
I mean, amazon.com/Domino-Premium-Pure-Cane-Sugar/dp/B0019MWNX0/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=grocery&qid=1260125064&sr=8-5"]Domino Premium Pure Cane Sugar 5Lb Bag: Amazon.com: Grocery
only costs $4, and that is for a 5LB. And a lot of these supplements are close to $30 or so. Plus you don't really need 5LB of sugar for the whole supplement, so really the most you will most likely use is at most quarter of a pound, and maybe even less.
So you have a supplement that costs $30-40, and add the price of sugar...what is that like $1-2 at most.
Some how I have trouble believing the excuse of "saving money" especially when it has to do with sugar. Wtf is this? The depression? That sugar has become this luxury item? I honestly think we are more likely to run out of water on this earth than to run out of sugar.
I mean, do you see homeless people on the street begging for a cup of sugar? Do you see those "starving africa" ads asking for sugar?
Seriously, when was the last time on this planet did you hear, "Damn, I really wish I had access to sugar! It's is so damn expensive and all!"
WTF? And in terms of price,
A 5LB of sugar costs $4...
compare that to a popular one, Splenda
amazon.com/Splenda-Calorie-Sweetener-Granulated-1-2-Pound/dp/B001GVIRYS/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=grocery&qid=1260125719&sr=1-2"]Splenda No Calorie Sweetener, Granulated, 1.2-Pound Bag: Amazon.com: Grocery
1.2LB for $14.97
:|
In what kind of ****ing world do we live in where we consider $15 for 1LB a lot "cheaper" than $4 for 5 times that amount.
**** you supplement companies! If you are considering putting artificial sweeteners in your products why not just raise the price of the product a $1. I will promise you, I will not be offended if my $30 supplement will be worth $31, just because you added real sugar. It's okay. It is a sacrifice that I am willing to make. To give up an extra $1 for something that grows in the ground.
Oh yeah, while you are at it. I guess you will not need that graduate student in the lab creating the artificial sweetener. I guess I am sorry if he will have to be fired since his services will not be needed anymore. But hey, at least your company will not have to pay the $70,000+ a year. Oh look! $70,000+ of spare money you can put towards buying real sugar for like 20 years ahead, and still have enough money left over for a nice sports car or a down payment for a nice house.
/useless rant
I mean, amazon.com/Domino-Premium-Pure-Cane-Sugar/dp/B0019MWNX0/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=grocery&qid=1260125064&sr=8-5"]Domino Premium Pure Cane Sugar 5Lb Bag: Amazon.com: Grocery
only costs $4, and that is for a 5LB. And a lot of these supplements are close to $30 or so. Plus you don't really need 5LB of sugar for the whole supplement, so really the most you will most likely use is at most quarter of a pound, and maybe even less.
So you have a supplement that costs $30-40, and add the price of sugar...what is that like $1-2 at most.
Some how I have trouble believing the excuse of "saving money" especially when it has to do with sugar. Wtf is this? The depression? That sugar has become this luxury item? I honestly think we are more likely to run out of water on this earth than to run out of sugar.
I mean, do you see homeless people on the street begging for a cup of sugar? Do you see those "starving africa" ads asking for sugar?
Seriously, when was the last time on this planet did you hear, "Damn, I really wish I had access to sugar! It's is so damn expensive and all!"
WTF? And in terms of price,
A 5LB of sugar costs $4...
compare that to a popular one, Splenda
amazon.com/Splenda-Calorie-Sweetener-Granulated-1-2-Pound/dp/B001GVIRYS/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=grocery&qid=1260125719&sr=1-2"]Splenda No Calorie Sweetener, Granulated, 1.2-Pound Bag: Amazon.com: Grocery
1.2LB for $14.97
:|
In what kind of ****ing world do we live in where we consider $15 for 1LB a lot "cheaper" than $4 for 5 times that amount.
**** you supplement companies! If you are considering putting artificial sweeteners in your products why not just raise the price of the product a $1. I will promise you, I will not be offended if my $30 supplement will be worth $31, just because you added real sugar. It's okay. It is a sacrifice that I am willing to make. To give up an extra $1 for something that grows in the ground.
Oh yeah, while you are at it. I guess you will not need that graduate student in the lab creating the artificial sweetener. I guess I am sorry if he will have to be fired since his services will not be needed anymore. But hey, at least your company will not have to pay the $70,000+ a year. Oh look! $70,000+ of spare money you can put towards buying real sugar for like 20 years ahead, and still have enough money left over for a nice sports car or a down payment for a nice house.
/useless rant
Hardnutcheck
Member
How about they just forget adding a sweetner all together and leave the choosing of sweetner up to myself.
noot
Member
Heh, even better!
dumbhick3
Member
Protein factory allows you to pick your sweetner and flavoring (including stevia) or nothing at all and you can read reviews of which combos taste good and which taste like vomit and so on. It is where I shop for my protein powders and blends.
I agree that some of the Splenda powders I have tried are just too sweet-unnecessary. Protein just has to be palatable, not taste like a strawberry milkshake with a banana split on the side. When did bodybuilding become so "fruity"?
As for the the whole back and forth sweetener argument, there would be less need for them (the artificial ones) if Americans (I am one) weren't so fat and lazy in general! There would be less diabetes, less lardos trying to "get on a diet" without understanding even the most simplistic concepts of proper nutrition. And if you brush your teeth every day, the sugar isn't going to make your teeth fall out either (a long-standing argument for the value of artificial sweeteners).
I agree that some of the Splenda powders I have tried are just too sweet-unnecessary. Protein just has to be palatable, not taste like a strawberry milkshake with a banana split on the side. When did bodybuilding become so "fruity"?
As for the the whole back and forth sweetener argument, there would be less need for them (the artificial ones) if Americans (I am one) weren't so fat and lazy in general! There would be less diabetes, less lardos trying to "get on a diet" without understanding even the most simplistic concepts of proper nutrition. And if you brush your teeth every day, the sugar isn't going to make your teeth fall out either (a long-standing argument for the value of artificial sweeteners).
SonicSWOLE
Member
Yes, which means it is understudied and untested..oh and unregulated. So.... is it really any better than any of the artificial sweeteners in this thread. The plain and simple answer is: No one really knows for sure(remember foxglove, belladonna, and castor beans are all natural).
ax1
Legend
i use at least 20 packs of splenda on a daily basis, not including what i get from my protein shakes,
ive been using splenda for at least 5 years, and i love it. its tastes great and helps me enjoy my coffee without putting weight on as i do low carb dieting.
personally, yes i do believe natural is the way to go, and recommend people use stevia, but hey i dont smoke or drink, and this along with too much coffee/stims are my only evils.
its possible the sugar lobbyist are putting propaganda out on their competition.
ive been using splenda for at least 5 years, and i love it. its tastes great and helps me enjoy my coffee without putting weight on as i do low carb dieting.
personally, yes i do believe natural is the way to go, and recommend people use stevia, but hey i dont smoke or drink, and this along with too much coffee/stims are my only evils.
its possible the sugar lobbyist are putting propaganda out on their competition.
hardknock
Well-known member
Noot, you are hitting in a solid direction.
Even though I'm in the business of selling powders, I am just bewildered to why people put so much "faith" in protein powders instead of real foods. Seriously, is everyone in the military in the fields away from food sources, in medical school or engineering school, studying 17 hrs a day or working a back breaking job 17 jrs a day? Perhaps on a crusade for the homeless 24 hrs a day? Maybe planning a world takeover?
People claim their schedule is so busy until they don't have time to cook?
I find that if time is used more efficiently, you will find yourself able to provide your body with fresh, natural foods.
Supplements are to be used as an addition and not as a 50yr fixture. Eventually we have to try to get most of our sources from foods...
Even though I'm in the business of selling powders, I am just bewildered to why people put so much "faith" in protein powders instead of real foods. Seriously, is everyone in the military in the fields away from food sources, in medical school or engineering school, studying 17 hrs a day or working a back breaking job 17 jrs a day? Perhaps on a crusade for the homeless 24 hrs a day? Maybe planning a world takeover?
People claim their schedule is so busy until they don't have time to cook?
I find that if time is used more efficiently, you will find yourself able to provide your body with fresh, natural foods.
Supplements are to be used as an addition and not as a 50yr fixture. Eventually we have to try to get most of our sources from foods...
hardknock
Well-known member
Brushing your teeth everday is only minimal. Without proper care of your teeth, those pearls don't stand a chance even if you only suck down rice cakes your whole life or drink water.
Also, I am sure that you are aware of the fact that sugar isn't the reason for the nations obesity. It is because of a lack of energy expenditure. Calories in cannot be greater than calories out, point blank.
People can swallow down spnich and chicken breast all day but if at the end of that day they are on the couch watching t.v. then the results will be the same, it just takes longer.
ax1
Legend
look (google) for unsweetened unflavored whey. i think you can get it from the protein factory custom made.
purebred
Guest
It's called shortcuts and cut-backs (e.g. by companies). mostly shortcuts though. whatever is cheaper (or rather "cost-effective) is what many companies tend to go for.
i'll be impressed when i see a company who uses xylitol and similar healthy alternatives. natural flavors might be a good start.
JohnT
New member
Look at a product from daviscofoods called BiPro. I cant post links yet, but google can lead you in the right direction. IMHO, BiPro is some of the best unflavored whey protein on the market. And no I dont work for them
bxtoman
New member
by the delaney clause passed by congress, no substances that causes cancer may be sold, but big time companies lobbied, pushed around congress to force the fda to approve artificial sweeteners. these companies worked with some diet organization which argued artificial was good to use because some sweeteners are hundreds to thousands more sweeter than sucrose(table sugar) so you can use less of it. pretty much your body cant break some or most of these artificial sweeteners so you pee out what you just drank, well the sweetener that is. all of these artificial sweeteners have shown to be cancerous in rats, although at high dosage. i could give more detail if wanted, but thats the jist.
ax1
Legend
its all bullcrap,
people die from eating to much sugar during their lives and these corporate bastards want to brainwash children to eating candy, sugar coated cereal, sugar drinks. they train us at a early age to be suicidal on sugar and the government isnt doing anything about this because the politicians would lose votes fighting it.
instead they focus on bullcrap like banning pro-hormones and supplements when sugar is the evil here.
500,000 americians die every year from smoking and nobody wants to ban that either, see where im getting at?
yeah the rats get cancer from artificial sweeteners in high doses, but the sugar rats DIE! why not just get cancer and live a little longer?
people die from eating to much sugar during their lives and these corporate bastards want to brainwash children to eating candy, sugar coated cereal, sugar drinks. they train us at a early age to be suicidal on sugar and the government isnt doing anything about this because the politicians would lose votes fighting it.
instead they focus on bullcrap like banning pro-hormones and supplements when sugar is the evil here.
500,000 americians die every year from smoking and nobody wants to ban that either, see where im getting at?
yeah the rats get cancer from artificial sweeteners in high doses, but the sugar rats DIE! why not just get cancer and live a little longer?