For the keto dieter with a sweet tooth
- 09-04-2004, 11:17 AM
For the keto dieter with a sweet tooth
Here's two of my favorite sweetening agents. The first is splenda except with out the added maltodextrin (still can't fathom why they add carbs to a 0 carb sweetner; ) Here is a link.
If you need a sugar like texture (although this stays alot more grainy), erythritol is by far the best option for sugar alchohols. Compared to other sugar alchohols (like maltitol,) erythritol only has .2 cal per gram while all others have 1.5-3 cals per gram. Here's a link for this.
Another sweetner that can be used in conjunction with the other two can be bought online or at your local health food store and is called stevia extract. It comes in a liquid form but can be a little bitter if you use too much so I prefer a combo.
Now you have no excuse to cheat
- 09-04-2004, 02:22 PM
I have never heard of the second one at all. Is this better then Stevia? I love Stevia for a sweetner. Does Bobo have any input on this
Originally Posted by growmore
09-04-2004, 07:16 PM
Well for one, Stevia is a natural plant derivative and will NOT GIVE YOU CANCER. Stay away from artificial sweeteners. Companys that use stevia; Healthy N Fit, Optimum Nutrition.Originally Posted by Sixpack
09-06-2004, 07:09 PM
There's absolutely no evidence and nothing to suggest that either sucralose(splenda) or erythritol give you cancer or that stevia does or doesn't for that matter; sachrin was the only artificial sweetner I'm aware of that could have possible implications as a cancer causing agent and this was in very high doses in rats and has been dismissed by the FDA. These are just my personal favorites, it's your choice to use them or not.
09-06-2004, 08:42 PM
a little more research on your part...but hey...just want my fellow BB to stay as healthy as possible...but more than likely using a substance for 20+ years is not a good idea as it has barely been tested on humans...a link for your research http://www.holisticmed.com/splenda/
09-06-2004, 08:47 PM
Why is this relevant to the sucralose question? Similar to the aspartame situation 15 years ago:
- Pre-approval test indicated potential toxicity of sucralose.
- There are no *independent* controlled human studies on sucralose (similar to 15 years ago for aspartame).
- There are no long-term (12-24 months) human studies of sucralose's effects.
- There is no monitoring of health effects. It took government agencies decades to agree that there were countless thousands of deaths from tobacco. Why? Simply because there had been no monitoring or epidemiological studies. Without such monitoring and studies, huge effects can easily go unnoticed.
09-06-2004, 09:42 PM
I had not seen that perticular information; thank you for backing your concerns with research. You have to take everything in stride though since there's lots of stuff we are exposed to daily that will cause nasty effects in high enough levels and have no notable negative consequence in the levels used in the real world; only cause for concern would be if there was a definite cumulative effect or consequences related to prolonged exposure (such as seams to be the case with many carcinogens). Thanks for the info, something to definately take into consideration when making a choice on which sweetner to use.
09-06-2004, 11:05 PM
no problem...glad you received it with an open mind....it just seems crazy that as body builders we would continue to ingest mass amounts of Aspartame, Acesulfame K, and Sucralose, products totally counter productive and contrary to a sound Health and fitness lifestyle...glad I could help
Similar Forum Threads
- By enhanced in forum Supplement LogsReplies: 65Last Post: 07-01-2014, 08:00 PM
- By Rodthrower18 in forum SupplementsReplies: 2Last Post: 02-27-2012, 01:55 PM
- By MattPorter in forum RecipesReplies: 1Last Post: 03-15-2006, 12:32 PM
- By VanillaGorilla in forum General ChatReplies: 2Last Post: 07-29-2004, 03:29 PM
- By WYD02 in forum Weight LossReplies: 5Last Post: 01-09-2003, 10:43 AM