COMPANIES LEAVE OUT THE!!!! & INNOVATE
- 11-29-2012, 04:25 PM
- 11-29-2012, 04:26 PM
11-29-2012, 04:34 PM
11-29-2012, 04:37 PM
I thought Adams made a good point to be honest....Originally Posted by PreciseNstuff
Edit: matter of fact they both made sense.
PEScience Representativehttp://pescience.com/insider http://facebook.com/pescience
11-29-2012, 04:43 PM
11-29-2012, 04:58 PM
"hey man who knows if aspartame is bad or not but who cares when you can have to much C" "yeah dude peanuts cause reactions in certain people so the fact that aspartame is unhealthy is not valid."
11-29-2012, 05:02 PM
My comment was very pertinent to the debate because you are throwing out a useless fact about your friends who get headache from a diet coke.
I know people who fart from milk.
You know what they have in common with this debate? Nothing.
if you want to make useless general comments that you think are supporting your claim, just expect an equally ridiculous comment back. Now post up some real information from a credible source and we can discuss it.
Post up your "bad " research of the ones you think are bad, and away we will go.
From my gathering, you support the OPs premise. Of which promoting the use of say stevia over sucralose... of which stevia has research showing infertility in rat models, and being a possible DNA mutagen.
A. Yamada et al.: Chronic toxicity study of dietary stevia extracts in F344 rats. J. Food Hyg Soc Japan 26:169-183, 1985.
The Historic PES Legend
11-29-2012, 05:05 PM
11-29-2012, 05:08 PM
11-29-2012, 05:16 PM
11-29-2012, 05:17 PM
Considering negging OP. I'm all up for debate, but the reason behind the neg is so that impressionable lurkers don't take him seriously. There's nothing worse than a forum that propagates misinformation.
11-29-2012, 05:23 PM
11-29-2012, 05:28 PM
That said, artificial sweeteners have more safety studies than any supplement you ingest. That's right, sucralose is likely safer than basic vitamins like Vitamin C and folate. They have been tested at megadoses (acute megadoses will present with symptoms of toxicity more strongly than chronic, small doses) with no ill effect.
11-29-2012, 05:29 PM
11-29-2012, 05:32 PM
11-29-2012, 05:52 PM
Why do i always read these threads????
All posts by mattys4 are the result of a very creative imagination and should not be considered advice nor taken seriously
Xcel Sports Nutrition Sponsored Athlete
11-29-2012, 05:56 PM
I love aspartame
as I sip on my 44oz diet cherry limeade
Controlled Labs Board Rep
CONTROLLED LABS products are produced in a GMP for Sport certified facility.
11-29-2012, 06:04 PM
11-29-2012, 06:12 PM
11-29-2012, 06:37 PM
My head hurts
BTW did you guys know there exist a diet grape juice? I'm so excited about this!
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." - Socrates
11-29-2012, 07:01 PM
11-29-2012, 07:05 PM
11-29-2012, 07:31 PM
Are any of the posters that are against artificial sweeteners, etc. in products willing to post what supplements they do use? I always find it amusing that some are willing to mess around with their body chemistry, but step up on the soap box over what others put in their coffee.
11-29-2012, 07:42 PM
And as for the "natural" sweeteners...sugar alcohols can cause or exacerbate inflammatory GI syndromes. What do artificial sweeteners do in this regard? Nothing.
11-29-2012, 07:43 PM
11-29-2012, 09:37 PM
11-29-2012, 10:28 PM
Here is a fun fact: there is not a single piece of placebo-controlled, double-blind, and randomized trial which demonstrates that 'artificial' sweeteners do, or are even capable of, leading to tangible adverse health effects in humans. Yet, a certain segment of the population is insistent on propagating this half-witted nonsense about the 'dangers' of artificial sweeteners, all the while touting the health benefits of processed sugar - the irony in principle and application is thick enough to cut with a knife.
I wrote this little ditty some time ago, and I like to use it sparingly - like fine china - only to admonish the most insistent, yet ill-informed hippies.
Now, on to questions about harmful side effects for long-term use. To put a very complex issue simply, there is no reliable and competent scientific data to suggest that sucralose has significant toxic potential. With regard to acute toxicity, doses of 50,000 times the RDI have not produced any detectable effects whatever . These doses were 10,000 and 16,000 mg/kg bw/day, respectively. The long term assays speak to the same safety.
To wit, 104 week (two year) oncogenicity and chronic toxicity studies in both rat and mice concluded that sucralose possessed no direct effects on the generation of oncoblasts or proliferation of cancer, nor possessed any direct toxicity in all tissue types studied. Minor decreases in organ and body weight, like the majority of other sucralose studies, were concluded to be peripheral to sucralose's direct physiological effects, and were consequences of the inpalatability of the compound [2, 3].
The doses used in the rat and mice studies were exbortinant, far exceeding what is either mechanically or physiologically possible in humans. The NOEL (no observed effect levels) was 1500mg/kg bw/day, with the LOEL (lowest observed effect level) being 4500mg/kg bw/day. To put this into more relevant terms, I would personally need to consume 1/2 lb of sucralose a day, everyday, for two consecutive years in order to broach the level at which no evidence for direct toxic effects were demonstrated.
These results are not alone. In a 12 month dietary study in Beagle dogs fed 875mg/kg bw/day of sucralose by galvage, no immunotoxic or carcinogenic effects were seen at statistically significant levels, and as in the prior rodent studies, any alterations in body weight or organ weight were concluded to be secondary . Studies on pregnant rabbits and rats using doses of up to 1000mg/kg bw/day and 2000mg/kg bw/day for the duration of the 28 week pregnancies did not evince any in utero developmental damage, while the mothers were subject, again, to secondary effects resulting from inpalatability to sucralose [5,6,7].
Finally, while they were not traditional toxicity assays, clinical trials in humans with durations up to and including 6 months, of doses up to and including 1000mg/day, found no significant alterations to major haemotological parameters, nor significant adverse effects.
Put quite simply, there is a complete dearth of evidence to suggest that sucralose is in any way harmful to human health. Unfortunately, the strictures of the scientific community do not apply to the distressing new trend of "new age health" gurus who promulgate this or that in an attempt, in the majority of cases, to push a, "natural sweetener."
Ironically enough, what the new age health community pejoratively deems "the chemical sweeteners" haveexponentially more scientific data on their various metabolic, physiologic, and pharmacological effects than do newer, "organic" sweeteners such as Stevia. Again, this seems lost amongst the uninformed fervor!
I hope that adequately answers your questions with regard to sucralose safety.
1. Tate & Lyle Speciality Sweeteners (1989). Sucralose monographs. Unpublishedsubmission by Tate & Lyle Speciality Sweeteners, UK, to the EC Scientific Committee
for Food, August 1989.
2. Rhenius ST, Ryder JR and Aymes SJ (1986).1,6-dichloro-1,6-dideoxy-ß-Dfructofuranosyl-4-chloro-4-deoxy a-D-galactopyranoside (TGS): 104 week combined toxicity and oncogenicity study in CD rats with ‘in utero’ exposure. Life Science Research Limited, UK. Report No 86/MSPO33/638. Unpublished report submitted by Tate & Lyle Speciality Sweeteners, UK.
3. Aymes SJ, Ashby R and Aughton P (1986). 1,6-dichloro 1,6-dideoxy-ß-Dfructofuranosyl-4-chloro-4-deoxy a-D-galactopyranoside (TGS): 104 week oncogenicity study in mice. Life Science Research Limited, UK. Report No 86/MSPO35/179. Unpublished report submitted by Tate & Lyle Speciality Sweeteners, UK.
4. Goldsmith LA (1985). Twelve-month oral toxicity study in dogs: 1,6-dichloro-1,6-dideoxy-ß-D-fructofuranosyl-4-chloro-4-deoxy-a-D-galactopyranoside (TGS). Unpublished report from Hazleton Laboratories America, Inc. submitted by Tate & Lyle Speciality Sweeteners, UK.
5. Joint Food Safety and Standards Group (1998). Evaluation of sucralose by the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF). Conclusions of the UK Committee on Toxicity on teratology studies. Letter dated April 17, 1998. MAFF/DH Joint Food Safety and Standards Group, London, UK.
6. Tesh JM, Willoughby CR, Hough AJ, Tesh SA and Wilby OK (1983). 1,6-dichloro-1,6-dideoxy-ß-D-fructofuranosyl-4-chloro-4-deoxy-a-D-galactopyranoside (TGS): Effects of
oral administration upon pregnancy in the rat. Life Science Research Limited, UK. Report No 82/MSPO22/311. Unpublished report submitted by Tate & Lyle Speciality
7. Tesh JM, Ross FW, Bailey GP, Wilby OK and Tesh SA (1987). 1,6-dichloro-1,6-dideoxy-ß-D-fructofuranosyl-4-chloro-4-deoxy-a-D-galactopyranoside (TGS): Teratology study in the rabbit. Life Science Research Limited, UK. Report No 82/TYLO95/046. Unpublished report submitted by Tate & Lyle Speciality Sweeteners, UK.
8. A six-month study of the effect of sucralose versus placebo on glucose homeostasis in patients with non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus. Unpublished report submitted by Tate & Lyle Speciality Sweeteners, UK. (Study No. E-157)
9. An evaluation of specific clinical chemistry parameters and methods in study E-157: A six-month study of the effect of sucralose versus placebo on glucose homeostasis in patients with non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus. Unpublished report submitted by Tate & Lyle Speciality Sweeteners, UK. (Study No. E-168)
10. A 12-week study of the effect of sucralose on glucose homeostasis and HbA1c in normal healthy volunteers. Unpublished report submitted by Tate & Lyle Speciality Sweeteners, UK. (Study No. E-169)
11-29-2012, 10:37 PM
11-29-2012, 10:37 PM
11-29-2012, 10:37 PM
Similar Forum Threads
- By LakeMountD in forum Training ForumReplies: 1Last Post: 09-30-2003, 02:06 PM
- By scotty2 in forum SupplementsReplies: 13Last Post: 07-25-2003, 05:33 PM
- By The Answer in forum General ChatReplies: 0Last Post: 02-03-2003, 02:42 AM