Artificial Sweeteners

[Blight]

Recently, I've encountered new products that contain artificial sweeteners. In my personal case, these were breakfast cereals. The particular brand I purchased had 3 different types of artificial sweeteners.

Wanting to know more about what I was about to eat, I searched the web for more information on these particular sweeteners. My problem is the difficulty in weeding out what is the truth about possible side-effects.

In my searches, I've found references that completely negate each other. Some pages say these sweeteners are safe, others claim they can cause bad side-effects. Some of the pro-sweeteners sites are obviously industry sponsored and some of the negative sites are of questionable value (can be woo related).

I was also told (by several people, including a doctor) that artificial sweeteners can actually slow down your body's metabolism, which would actually defeat the purpose of consuming these products in the first place.

The particular cereal I purchased contained sucralose, isomalt and maltitol.

So... what is the most objective truth on this subject?

[knot]

There is controversy over Splenda and the way it's made. They say it was originally supposed to be a pesticide and that it contains chlorine molecules.

[fuelair]

There is controversy over Splenda and the way it's made. They say it was originally supposed to be a pesticide and that it contains chlorine molecules.
So does salt (chlorine atoms that is). And it doesn't turn into chlorine gas in your tummy nor does it bleach you from the inside. This is like the people who can't tell fluorine (nasty stuff - and mixed with hydrogen it can etch glass ........BUT) from fluorides which are compounds that involve fluorine combining with metals to form salts - of which stannous (tin) fluoride is useful for treating teeth to reduce the chance of decay. Elements properties change - often drastically - when they combine with other elements to form ionic or covalent bonds (a couple of others too, but we don't need them for this). As example from above: Sodium is a nasty metal that will catch fire when exposed to water forming a rather nasty compound called sodium hydroxide (lye) - though lye is normally produced in a different way. When Chlorine is dissolved in water (more to it - but - ) a nasty acid HCl is formed. But, when NaOH (lye) and HCl (hydrocloric acid) are mixed in equal strength/amounts, they form salt water (NaCl + H2O).
Similarly, switching a chlorine ion for a hydrogen ion makes sugar do two things - first, it develops a sweeter taste and second, it no longer breaks down as a nutrient in our body (Cl doesn't fit in the catalyst (enzyme) "key" like H does).

[fuelair]

It could, by the by, be used as a pesticide - if you understand that a pesticide means only that something kills pests. If ants discovered a big amount of Splenda and ate only that for awhile, they would starve to death - many food basics can be made non-nutritional and if you only eat those, you would starve to death - as would the pests.

[knot]

So does salt (chlorine atoms that is). And it doesn't turn into chlorine gas in your tummy nor does it bleach you from the inside. This is like the people who can't tell fluorine (nasty stuff - and mixed with hydrogen it can etch glass ........BUT) from fluorides which are compounds that involve fluorine combining with metals to form salts - of which stannous (tin) fluoride is useful for treating teeth to reduce the chance of decay. Elements properties change - often drastically - when they combine with other elements to form ionic or covalent bonds (a couple of others too, but we don't need them for this). As example from above: Sodium is a nasty metal that will catch fire when exposed to water forming a rather nasty compound called sodium hydroxide (lye) - though lye is normally produced in a different way. When Chlorine is dissolved in water (more to it - but - ) a nasty acid HCl is formed. But, when NaOH (lye) and HCl (hydrocloric acid) are mixed in equal strength/amounts, they form salt water (NaCl + H2O).
Similarly, switching a chlorine ion for a hydrogen ion makes sugar do two things - first, it develops a sweeter taste and second, it no longer breaks down as a nutrient in our body (Cl doesn't fit in the catalyst (enzyme) "key" like H does).

No problem, but I wasn't asking for a chemistry lesson nor was I putting up an argument. I was only stating part of what the controversy is.

Honestly, I don't know and I don't care. Besides, I know enough chemists at another board.

[Slimething]

In my searches, I've found references that completely negate each other. Some pages say these sweeteners are safe, others claim they can cause bad side-effects. Some of the pro-sweeteners sites are obviously industry sponsored and some of the negative sites are of questionable value (can be woo related).

For chemical exposure data, seek out information from refereed toxicology publications. They're a little tough to wade through but you'll get good, unbiased information. Frankly, there are too many players in the artificial sweetener game with their own agendas that looking at the nonscientific info on the web can be confusing. Try the following:

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/artificial-sweeteners

http://www.webmd.com/content/Article/102/106833.htm?pagenumber=1

also, get the MSDS of the pure stuff. It should be available on the web. Try aldrich.com if you can't find it anywhere else but you will have to know its common name.


I was also told (by several people, including a doctor) that artificial sweeteners can actually slow down your body's metabolism, which would actually defeat the purpose of consuming these products in the first place.


Frankly, I cannot see any way that can be true. Chemicals are regulated based on their Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) in experimental animals. The lowest observable effects are usually things like microscopic changes in tissues, lethargy, increased/decreased activity, etc. Mass lowering of metabolism would be an 800 lb gorilla. The lowest threshold dose would be set far, far below that. Tell your doctor friend to review his toxicology.

[Slimething]

There is controversy over Splenda and the way it's made. They say it was originally supposed to be a pesticide and that it contains chlorine molecules.

This is a bit of woo from anti-pesticide luddites. When the chemical industry discovers activity in a molecule, it's not supposed to be anything. If it kills pests, it will be developed as a pesticide. If it treats a disease, it will be developed as a medication. If it does nothing, it will be developed into a homeopathic agent.

A few years back, anti-pesticide woos tried to ban the industrial use of chlorine. No kidding! Because many industrial products are halogenated, they felt that chlorine must be bad because only natural is good. Well, there's plenty of naturally-occuring halogenated molecules too. So, that prize-winning idea didn't last too long.

[Slimething]

No problem, but I wasn't asking for a chemistry lesson nor was I putting up an argument. I was only stating part of what the controversy is.

Honestly, I don't know and I don't care. Besides, I know enough chemists at another board.

Well, that was pretty s-knot-ty! Let me get this right. You make a statement and someone replies with more information than you need so it's their fault they could not read your mind? Did it ever cross your mind that a lurker would benefit from that info?

Are you proud of your ignorace or are you merely saving it up for a rainy day?

[The SkepDoc]

There is an incredible amount of misinformation on the web about artificial sweeteners, especially aspartame. The FDA, the European Food Safety Authority have repeatedly evaluated all the studies and determined that it is safe. But activists like Betty Martini claim that aspartame interacts with all drugs and vaccines, embalms you, gives you cancer, seizures and makes you go blind. The claim about making you go blind is particularly funny, since it is based on one published study in which one subject had a retinal detachment and did lose the sight in one eye - but he was in the placebo group!

Wikipedia has articles on sucralose, isomalt and maltitol. Wikipedia isn't always a reliable resource, but these articles look pretty reasonable to me.

[Professor Yaffle]

Nothing to do with toxicity, but tangentially related to your query about metabolic rate. I think the most plausible thing I have heard about sweeteners not being much good for weightloss is the following. When you taste something sweet, your body prepares for an influx of sugar and lowers the levels of sugar circulating in the blood in anticipation. When no sugar actually comes, it leaves you with slightly lower blood sugar which causes you to feel peckish, and you end up eating more than you would have if you hadn't had that artificially sweetened drink.

I don't however know if there has been any empirical evidence of this.

[Mojo]

There is an incredible amount of misinformation on the web about artificial sweeteners, especially aspartame.


For example the "ant poison" claim. Do a Google search for aspartame and "ant poison" and it will bring up a couple of thousand hits, such as this one (http://www.execonn.com/poison.html).

According to Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/humor/iftrue/antpoison.asp), the story originated as satire: the appearance of this article on a site called The Spoof, along with its disclaimer that "the story represented above is written as a satire or parody. It is fictitious," should provide most readers with sufficient clues for discerning that the article is, in fact, a spoof. Unfortunately, the mistaking of parody for factual information is representative of the dubious quality of much of the anti-aspartame information to be found on the internet.


Of course, once the story was picked up, it was spammed all over the place by anti-aspartame campaigners, usually relating it in the first person, as in the case of the one on the website linked to above. Another claim (http://www.execonn.com/sf/) made on that website was discussed (and dismantled) here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=55420).

[Professor Yaffle]

Further to my previous post, I just checked pubmed, and while there were a few studies linking aspartame to increased appetite, the weight of the evidence overall does not suggest a link.

[DangerousBeliefs]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucralose

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomalt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maltitol


I personally suggest eating UNsweetened shredded wheat... and add a teaspoon (or two) of sugar for taste. The increase in calories in very small (16 calories per teaspoon).

Where you're really going to save on the calories in drinks... 3 cokes a day adds up to 465 empty calories a day... over 3000 calories a week.

Here's where choosing "diet" can make a big difference...

[Professor Yaffle]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucralose

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomalt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maltitol


I personally suggest eating UNsweetened shredded wheat... and add a teaspoon (or two) of sugar for taste. The increase in calories in very small (16 calories per teaspoon).

Where you're really going to save on the calories in drinks... 3 cokes a day adds up to 465 empty calories a day... over 3000 calories a week.

Here's where choosing "diet" can make a big difference...

Or get the idea into your head that when you are thirsty, you don't need anything sweet - just drink water. When you are really thirsty, you glug down your drink, and don't taste much of it anyway, so you may as well be drinking water. I usually have a large drink of water, and then if it is a taste I fancy - rather than being thirsty per se, a very small drink of fruit juice afterwards.

I think the idea that has got into our heads, that when you want a drink, it has to be flavoured in some way, rather than just slaking your thirst, is one of the main contributors to our weight problems in the west. I know my husband lost a lot of weight without trying very hard when he just stopped drinking Irn Bru whenever he was thirsty and took fizzy water instead.

[kittynh]

well we aren't talking about BEER here are we?

I mean, water is no substitute when you need a beer.

Just checking.

And what about light beers? I'm a fan, if just because I like the taste better. (don't hit me, I like Harp Lager too).

But I don't drink anymore stupidly thinking "wow, this has fewer calories"

[Blight]

Slimething:
I didn't say "mass lowering of metabolism", just slowed down (I didn't say by how much).

Everyone:
Personally, I stopped drinking flavored drinks entirely (except when going out to pubs/bars and the occasional hot drink). I lost 12kg in about 6 month and the weight stayed off (I also do about 1min of pullups/pushups a day, take a generic multi-vitamin pill once a day to offset for my bad western diet and try not to eat too much without giving up any of the food i like).

As for artificial sweeteners in drinks, I personally would stay away from them. I have friends (as in several) who used to drink 1-1.5litter of diet cola a day and would get severe headaches. These were friends from different social circles who got the same physical effects from drinking the stuff (the headaches stopped when they reduced their drinking volume or stopped drinking diet cola entirely).

I'm not sure their symptoms were related to the artificial sweeteners or some other element in the drink, but it was no fun, it took them months to realise it was related to their favorite drink. And yeah, doing everything to excess can be bad for you, but one would figure there might be some warning.

Lastly, here's one of the pages I've found on Surcalose dangers (might be woo):
http://www.mercola.com/2000/dec/3/sucralose_testimonials.htm

[The SkepDoc]

[QUOTE=Mojo;2619411]For example the "ant poison" claim. Do a Google search for aspartame and "ant poison" and it will bring up a couple of thousand hits, such as this one (http://www.execonn.com/poison.html).

I can't resist commenting on this. In my column in Skeptic magazine I said a story about astronauts was probably an urban myth "right up there with the myth that aspartame was developed as an ant poison."

I got two replies: the first said, "Aspartame WAS NOT developed as an ant poison!!" and the second said, "So why does aspartame kill rats?" and insisted that aspartame itself (not just the myth about ant poison) was NOT an urban legend.

Some people can't read, much less think.

[Mojo]

Lastly, here's one of the pages I've found on Surcalose dangers:
http://www.mercola.com/2000/dec/3/sucralose_testimonials.htmPage Unavailable

Attorneys acting on behalf of the manufacturers of sucralose, Tate & Lyle PLC based in London, England, have requested that the information contained on this page not be made available to Internet users in England.Can someone in Scotland or Wales let me know what it says? ;)

(might be woo)The name "Mercola (http://www.mercola.com/blog/2006/aug/23/got_an_ant_problem_use_aspartame)" might be a clue. As might be the word "testimonials" in the url.

[Mongrel]

As for artificial sweeteners in drinks, I personally would stay away from them. I have friends (as in several) who used to drink 1-1.5litter of diet cola a day and would get severe headaches. These were friends from different social circles who got the same physical effects from drinking the stuff (the headaches stopped when they reduced their drinking volume or stopped drinking diet cola entirely).

If they'd suffered from headaches whilst drinking that volume of a non-caffeinated (sp?) artificial sweetened drinks that might be a good indicator that sweeteners=headaches

[blutoski]

Recently, I've encountered new products that contain artificial sweeteners. In my personal case, these were breakfast cereals. The particular brand I purchased had 3 different types of artificial sweeteners.

Wanting to know more about what I was about to eat, I searched the web for more information on these particular sweeteners. My problem is the difficulty in weeding out what is the truth about possible side-effects.

In my searches, I've found references that completely negate each other. Some pages say these sweeteners are safe, others claim they can cause bad side-effects. Some of the pro-sweeteners sites are obviously industry sponsored and some of the negative sites are of questionable value (can be woo related).

I was also told (by several people, including a doctor) that artificial sweeteners can actually slow down your body's metabolism, which would actually defeat the purpose of consuming these products in the first place.

The particular cereal I purchased contained sucralose, isomalt and maltitol.

So... what is the most objective truth on this subject?

You'd have to be specific about which sweeteners.

Also, technically, the category 'artificial sweetener' is a misnomer: these substances are genuinely sweet. They are usually classified as 'intense sweeteners' because the manufacturer only requires small quantities to achieve a sweetening effect. This is how they can make the food equally sweet, but with fewer calories.

Aspartame, for example, is just a protein that happens to be much sweeter than sugar, so you need to add very small quantities to a food or beverage to provide a sweetening effect.


Regarding your friends' response to diet soft drinks: these are unfortunately very anecdotal, and there are a lot of ingredients in soft drinks that can produce this problem. Most commonly, this is a response to caffeine. There are other 'calorie burn' drinks that contain not only intense sweeteners, but an excess of stimulants, such as taurine and caffeine.

Another reason some people get headaches when they switch to 'diet' sodas is that their bodies have adapted to the regular dose of simple sugars, and the body is now responding to a type of withdrawl. This is is not a reaction to the intense sweetener so much as a response to the lack of sugar. This happens to dieters just as often when they cut out soft drinks (or sweetened coffee) entirely and replace with water. The headache can be the body panicking over the loss of a previously-dependable sugar buzz, basically.

The third - and rare - possibility is that your friends may have had PKU, which is a genetic disorder that is sensitive to aspartate, which is an amino acid in Aspartame. Generally speaking, though, these people know who they are, and they have a list of foods that contain high concentrations of aspartate, and must avoid a long list of foods.

The fourth problem with anecdotes like this are that people don't usually go onto a diet plan in isolation. There are usually other factors in their lives changing at the same time. For example, for many years, we believed that there was a connection between eating candy and acne, because the diets showed a correlation. We now know that there is simply a common trigger for both: stress causes people to turn to junk food, and it also causes an increase in acne. This is why larger studies are the only acceptable way to gather information about these types of physiological responses: it reduces the confusion introduced by of all these other peripheral factors.

[Professor Yaffle]

Can someone in Scotland or Wales let me know what it says? ;)



Grr... I'm in Scotland, and it is not available to me either.

[The SkepDoc]

As for artificial sweeteners in drinks, I personally would stay away from them. I have friends (as in several) who used to drink 1-1.5litter of diet cola a day and would get severe headaches. These were friends from different social circles who got the same physical effects from drinking the stuff (the headaches stopped when they reduced their drinking volume or stopped drinking diet cola entirely).

I'm not sure their symptoms were related to the artificial sweeteners or some other element in the drink, but it was no fun, it took them months to realise it was related to their favorite drink. And yeah, doing everything to excess can be bad for you, but one would figure there might be some warning.

Lastly, here's one of the pages I've found on Surcalose dangers (might be woo):
http://www.mercola.com/2000/dec/3/sucralose_testimonials.htm

I know of at least three double-blind studies that show that people who think aspartame gives them headaches and other symptoms don't have those symptoms when they don't know they are getting aspartame.

As for Mercola, anything on his website should be considered wrong until proven otherwise.

[Blight]

With regards to the page link I provided, I'm in israel and it worked. It was also on the first google page when I searched for sucralose. Seems weird it would be unreachable based on country..


blutoski:
I actually wrote down the sweeteners I encountered in the cereal and you even quoted it.

As far as the headaches are concerned. This was with a particular product, I didn't want to mention product names, but I guess it's the only way to be clear. I was referring to Diet Coca-Cola. I'm not sure if caffine is involved or something else, but I was not talking about people switching to diet drinks, but rather prolonged high-volume use of the product in several people that I know. The moment they stopped drinking it (after doing so for years) the headaches ceased. Nothing else changed in their day to day activities or intake beyond the drinking. I have no idea if they had PKU, but even if they did, I don't think the problem is as easily noticable here in israel as only now does it seem that food companies are starting to integrate artificial sweeteners into a wider variaty of products and I haven't seen aspeterine in any of them (the ones that I personally considered consuming).

Skepdoc:
I'm not sure what these double blind tests test for, but these particular people didn't know where the headaches were coming from and didn't suspect (or even want to believe at first) that it was coming from the diet cola drink.

Obviously it isn't effecting everyone, but perhaps some people have increased sensitivity to some component in this particular drink (i'm not even sure it's the artificial sweetener) when it's drunk in high volume.

[The SkepDoc]

I'm not sure what these double blind tests test for, but these particular people didn't know where the headaches were coming from and didn't suspect (or even want to believe at first) that it was coming from the diet cola drink.

I'm sure you realize that reports like those are suggestive but not convincing until confirmed by double-blinded tests. Possible confounding factors need to be ruled out. People have been mistaken about such things before.

[Aepervius]

I am getting sometimes intense headache while drinking real cola (with a lot of sugar). I bet that this comes from the sugar, which probably kill ants, rats, give you cancer, kill your sexual apettite and give you migraine/headache and make your in-law stay away. Or something.

Or maybe this is the caffeine simply, since I never drink caffe or the or caffeine product except Cola.


Ha..... The pwoer of anecdotial testimony....


PS: I am still in favor for the first explanation.

[Mojo]

I am getting sometimes intense headache while drinking real cola (with a lot of sugar). I bet that this comes from the sugar, which probably kill ants, rats, give you cancer, kill your sexual apettite and give you migraine/headache and make your in-law stay away.


It's an ill wind that blows nobody any good...

[The SkepDoc]

[QUOTE=Aepervius;2620733]I am getting sometimes intense headache while drinking real cola (with a lot of sugar).
QUOTE]
Some people get intense headaches from drinking any cold beverage or from eating ice cream.

[blutoski]

I actually wrote down the sweeteners I encountered in the cereal and you even quoted it.

OK: I misunderstood. I thought your question was about artificial sweeteners in general, not just the few in the cereal. I'll post seperately.




As far as the headaches are concerned. This was with a particular product, I didn't want to mention product names, but I guess it's the only way to be clear. I was referring to Diet Coca-Cola. I'm not sure if caffine is involved or something else, but I was not talking about people switching to diet drinks, but rather prolonged high-volume use of the product in several people that I know. The moment they stopped drinking it (after doing so for years) the headaches ceased. Nothing else changed in their day to day activities or intake beyond the drinking. I have no idea if they had PKU, but even if they did, I don't think the problem is as easily noticable here in israel as only now does it seem that food companies are starting to integrate artificial sweeteners into a wider variaty of products and I haven't seen aspeterine in any of them (the ones that I personally considered consuming).

Diet Coke is an aspartame product. Regardless, the anecdote has too many unknowns to be useful. I am unconvinced that you have a complete record of everything they did at the time to eliminate the possibility of other changes. They have the right, for example, to keep their stress levels to themselves. This anecdote is incomplete and third-hand. About as far from scientific as they get.




I'm not sure what these double blind tests test for,

If SkepDoc is referring to the ones I'm thinking of, the tests were intended to ascertain the legitemacy of these claims. Specifically, people who reported side effects from intense sweeteners were given disguised samples that may or may not have had the substance in question. The results were the same as chance.

Similar tests are done to test claims about side effects for other substances, not just intense sweeteners. Preservatives are another popular target for these types of claims. Claims of a link between sugar and hyperactivity in children has been refuted through studies of this type, too.





but these particular people didn't know where the headaches were coming from and didn't suspect (or even want to believe at first) that it was coming from the diet cola drink.

That's not double-blinded, though. If they already harboured prejudice against the product, this could influence their reporting. This is the benefit of double-blinding.




Obviously it isn't effecting everyone, but perhaps some people have increased sensitivity to some component in this particular drink (i'm not even sure it's the artificial sweetener) when it's drunk in high volume.

Anything's possible, but we'd need a little more before committing to action.

[blutoski]

The particular cereal I purchased contained sucralose, isomalt and maltitol.

So... what is the most objective truth on this subject?

* sucralose - 600x sweeter than sucrose, 88% fewer calories / no realistic side effects

* isomalt - 40% less sweet than sucrose, 50% fewer calories / realistic side effects: digestion problems from excessive use

* maltitol - 10% less sweet than sucrose, 50% fewer calories / realistic side effects: digestion problems from excessive use

[Slimething]

Slimething:
I didn't say "mass lowering of metabolism", just slowed down (I didn't say by how much).

"Just slowed down metabolism" is mass lowering of metabolic rate. The hypothesis is that there is a noticeable, generalized decrease in energy consumption in people who use synthetic sweeters. That would lead to quite a few noticeable side effects, even at, say, 10%. Reflexes would slow, breathing become more shallow, muscle atrophy would ensue. There's no such thing as having a teensy-weensy metabolic drop without noticeable effects other than not losing weight.

Believe me, that would be noticed. The sweeteners would not be on the market very long.

[Kaylee]

Can someone in Scotland or Wales let me know what it says? ;)



I really dislike it when companies interfere with individual's internet access. That alone is enough to make me want to avoid their products.

Here you go -- the web page start's off with a comment by Dr. Mercola followed by many, many testimonials. I posted one of those too.

Dr. Mercola's Comment:
The following testimonials have been sent to us by people from all over the world who feel they have been harmed by Splenda. We have not researched each of these accounts in-depth, but instead are posting them to draw attention to the fact that Splenda’s safety -- or lack thereof -- is not only unknown and severely questionable, but worse still is not even being explored on a sufficient scale.
That Splenda is being marketed so freely and pervasively is most concerning given that there are currently NO large studies underway researching the safety of this artificial sweetener, and Splenda was released with few studies to support its safety. This is the same pattern that occurred with the artificial sweeteners aspartame and saccharine--two sweeteners that are now widely known to cause numerous health problems (http://forums.randi.org/2004/jan/7/aspartame_disease.htm). In the same way that Splenda was released with few studies proving its safety, few studies were conducted on aspartame and saccharine until the negative health effects began to be seen, raising alarm and prompting investigations into the true (lack of) safety of the products.
If it sounds strange that Splenda could be marketed so widely without any real safety studies, I ask you to consider the source behind the product. Splenda is made from real sugar and is then molecularly modified to be calorie-free (essentially, Splenda is produced by chlorinating sugar). The sugar industry, which is a huge and very powerful government lobby, is profiting quite nicely from this no-calorie sweetener. It is no secret that the U.S. government is influenced by the sugar industry (http://forums.randi.org/2004/feb/7/sugar_industry.htm), and it is not a stretch to think that their influence may be the real reason why no real studies have been done.
So, with that in mind, I urge you to take a look at the many Splenda testimonials below, and then ask yourself, is eating this largely experimental product really worth the risk?
---
and the first testimonial without pix:

I also have had horrific effects from splenda. In May of this year, I started having drop attacks that I thought were strokes or TIAs. Later they got so severe, I thought they were heart attacks caused by coronary artery spasms. At the time, I had no idea what was causing my attacks because all medical tests were coming back negative. But after several visits to the ER thinking I was having a stroke or a heart attack, I began putting two and two together--whenever I would drink or eat a splenda product, within a few hours or sometimes even a day or two, my body would go numb and tingly in different areas. I was tested for MS, heart disease and for brain lesions. Sometimes, it was the entire left side of my body, sometimes my right, sometimes just my legs, sometimes just my arms or my lips or face. It would get worse at night while I was sleeping, then I would wake up and my heart would immediately go into an arrhythmia and race at about 160 beats per minute. I would get dry mouth and extremely nauseous. At this point, I would be terrified and the numbness would get so bad I would not be able to walk. In addition, I would get extreme esophageal reflux, which was not affected by anything, including prevacid, pepcid, etc.
I also had such bad IBS that I was given more drugs to control that. Since May, I have spent quite a lot of money going to doctors, all to no avail and with no diagnosis ever made. Finally I was told I was having anxiety as no one could figure out what was wrong with my body. I started wondering if it could be all the low carb stuff I was eating, as this was the only change in my life. Around the beginning of May I had started on a "low carb" life style and started drinking the low carb slimfast and eating the sugar-free low carb candy that is now so abundant in stores. I quit everything for a while and the symptoms seemed to subside and then almost went away. Last week, for some dumb reason, I decided to retry the slim fast because of my weight loss goals and today I had another attack of numbness and a panic attack. During these attacks, I can hardly breath and my legs and arms are weak, I am dizzy, numb and my muscles ache horribly. It feels like I am about to die. To say they are severe is an understatement.
Needless to say, I have learned my lesson and will NEVER use sucralose again. It is dangerous and seems like a huge toxin to the body. If just one person reacts this way, it CAN'T be a good thing. It seems like we are being poisoned by these huge conglomerates that don't care about health and only interested in lining their pockets. The price of being thin is definitely not worth loosing brain cells or getting huge amounts of neurological and cardiological damage or who knows maybe even death. My digestive track and my arteries were actually going into huge spasms so much so that my doctor and I both thought that I was having angina. My doctor prescribed nitro just in case - even though I have low blood pressure, low cholesterol and a low body weight. This is how serious things got with my health while ingesting this deadly poison.
Sincerely,
Sallie Ceideski
Charlottesville, VA.

PS I didn't fix the links above as I ran into a request to provide my e-mail address to the Mercola which I didn't want to do.

[Mojo]

I really dislike it when companies interfere with individual's internet access. That alone is enough to make me want to avoid their products.


Well, obviously, the freedom to disseminate misinformation is an important one.

Here you go -- the web page start's off with a comment by Dr. Mercola followed by many, many testimonials. I posted one of those too.


Dr. Mercola's Comment:

The following testimonials have been sent to us by people from all over the world who feel they have been harmed by Splenda. We have not researched each of these accounts in-depth, but instead are posting them...


Relying on testimonials instead of properly conducted research is one of the classic warning signs of quackery.

[Kaylee]

Well, obviously, the freedom to disseminate misinformation is an important one.
I agree. :)

Seriously, who decides? My preference is for a strong public education system and letting eveyone be free to publish information. If a company is libeling another company -- the libeled company should be free to prove it and get damages. But in general, I don't favor censorship.

Anyway, you were blocked from seeing those web pages but wanted to know what they said anyway. So I guess, when it gets right down to it, you are not a big fan of censorship either. ;)




Relying on testimonials instead of properly conducted research is one of the classic warning signs of quackery.
I agree.

To be fair, I didn't pursue the links because I didn't feel like registering. It's possible that those links led to double-blinded peer reviewed studies -- although, FWIW, I'm not going to bet on it.

[Mojo]

It's possible that those links led to double-blinded peer reviewed studies...


:pigsfly

[Ocelot]

Was able to read the bliocked content in the UK via http://www.guardster.com/subscription/proxy_free.php

I've been reading around the argument and seem to be able to find fault with both sides. No doubt Mercola is a quack and also that big businesses lean on approval agencies.

ETA

This seesm a well referenced article http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/par64.htm

[fuelair]

I agree. :)




I agree.

To be fair, I didn't pursue the links because I didn't feel like registering. It's possible that those links led to double-blinded peer reviewed studies -- although, FWIW, I'm not going to bet on it.

It is possible, but more likely it led to monkeys flying out of my butt singing the Hallelujah Chorus.:D

[LTC8K6]

http://web.archive.org/web/20060424091024/http://www.mercola.com/2000/dec/3/sucralose_testimonials.htm

This wayback link might work, if you really want to visit the site of an absolute loon like Mercola...

The imbedded links will probably work as well, bypassing the e-mail question.

[kmortis]

With regards to the page link I provided, I'm in israel and it worked. It was also on the first google page when I searched for sucralose. Seems weird it would be unreachable based on country..


blutoski:
I actually wrote down the sweeteners I encountered in the cereal and you even quoted it.

As far as the headaches are concerned. This was with a particular product, I didn't want to mention product names, but I guess it's the only way to be clear. I was referring to Diet Coca-Cola. I'm not sure if caffine is involved or something else, but I was not talking about people switching to diet drinks, but rather prolonged high-volume use of the product in several people that I know. The moment they stopped drinking it (after doing so for years) the headaches ceased. Nothing else changed in their day to day activities or intake beyond the drinking. I have no idea if they had PKU, but even if they did, I don't think the problem is as easily noticable here in israel as only now does it seem that food companies are starting to integrate artificial sweeteners into a wider variaty of products and I haven't seen aspeterine in any of them (the ones that I personally considered consuming).

Skepdoc:
I'm not sure what these double blind tests test for, but these particular people didn't know where the headaches were coming from and didn't suspect (or even want to believe at first) that it was coming from the diet cola drink.

Obviously it isn't effecting everyone, but perhaps some people have increased sensitivity to some component in this particular drink (i'm not even sure it's the artificial sweetener) when it's drunk in high volume.

To the "negative effects from artificial sweeteners" camp: When I was younger, I'd drink pop all the time. Whenever I tried diet stuff (at the time it was mainly Tab), I'd experience various side effects ranging from the mild (headaches) to more problematic (thightening in the chest). I've never been tested for a sensitivity to sacchrine, as I've never really experienced other allergies (that I know of). I've generally avoided A.S.'s just out of principle. Recently, however, I've found that I can have sucralose with abosultely no issue (the new life saver tarts are quite yummy).

Now, all this is fine and dandy. I'm not asking for any legal action to be taken. I hope that long term studies are being done on the safety of these products. In general, I think that they're fine. Part of the reason I never really got into A.S.'s is that until recently, they tasted like...um..ass, so my "adverse" reactions to a single, small sample of an outdated sweetener hasn't really effected my life.

[fuelair]

Though this is technically anecdotal, George Giffe taught Biology at a college I went to in Nashville and worked to get funding to show saccharine was indeed harmful (from a sugar council of some sort). This is how he turned out: http://www.t-g.com/story/1170647.html.
Artificial Sweeteners:Menace or Terror?

[Ove]

I believe that "Nutra Sweet" (Aspartam) has been linked to certain allergies but that it's rare. Regarding the metabolism i have read that the problem is NOT that artificial flavours slow the metabolism but that sugar actually speeds up the process. Popularily spoken you could say that sugar is "fuel" for your metabolism. Off course you ruin the thing if you then drink 3-6 litres pr day (some teenagers do).. The study i read(and sorry cant remember where) compared coffee drinkers who took sugar to some who used artificial sweeteners. The group who used sugar stayed neutral the other group put on weight.
But then again it is thin ice i guess. The problem is that a lot of people use arificial sweeteners as a excuse for not doing anything else. My mum are one (she is no owerweight i might add). Everytime she fels she has put on a few pounds she puts the trusty box of "sweet pills" (translated directly from danish :) ) in her handbag and then when the coffee is served she pulls out the box and proclaims "I am on a diet" and then eat just as many cakes that she use to do.... The same with the guy in McD who orders a "Large BigMac menu and a doughnut"..... "and a Diet Coke" .
IF people would eat sensibly there would be absolutely no need for atrificial sweeteners but who's perfect? I ain't for sure. AND remember the wise words of Garfield (the cat) "Calories tastes a lot better than vitamins"..... ;)

[knot]

Well, that was pretty s-knot-ty! Let me get this right. You make a statement and someone replies with more information than you need so it's their fault they could not read your mind? Did it ever cross your mind that a lurker would benefit from that info?

Are you proud of your ignorace or are you merely saving it up for a rainy day?


Whatever, don't be a whiner. I wasn't trying to be "snotty" nor was I trying to fault anyone.

Proud? Oh! The irony, it's spelled i-g-n-o-r-a-n-c-e. If you are going to accuse me of being ignorant, at least spell it correctly.


lol nice try, have a nice day.

[Slimething]

I asked you about your ignorance. (There, now you can stop pretending to be one of those lame-brains who feels superior because of spelling errors. :rolleyes:) Everyone has ignorance unless you're an effin' know it all. You said you didn't want a chemistry lesson although it's pretty obvious you needed one.

Looking at your name: "knot Critical Thinker" seems to fit you.

You have a nice day, too! :biggrin: