Five Reasons to Avoid Using Splenda

SeaBreeze

Endlessly Groovin'
Location
USA
I don't use white sugar for many things, I'd rather use raw unfiltered honey in something like tea. If I absolutely had to use an alternative sweetener, I'd choose something like Stevia. Full article here. http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/top-5-reasons-never-use-splenda

Top 5 Reasons Never To Use Splenda

Posted on:
Tuesday, August 15th 2017 at 3:00 pm
Written By:
Sayer Ji, Founder



splenda_dangers_greenmedinfo%281%29.jpg


Splenda is marketed as a no-calorie, no-guilt sugar substitute. Blood sugar stable, it “passes right through” the body, so it’s safe for diabetics AND you won’t gain weight! Are these claims masking the ugly truth about this chemical imposter? As mounting research shows, when it comes to our diet, there is no free lunch.

1. It’s toxic and carcinogenic

Regulatory agencies may be slow to recognize the signs, but our bodies know immediately what is food, and what is poison. A recent study published in the European Journal of Nutrition concluded that rats metabolize sucralose in the same way they metabolize other harmful drugs and toxins. The body treats Splenda as a poison, and works fast to remove it.

Scientists found other toxicological issues with long-term exposure to sucralose. Bowel enlargement, kidney mineralization, and changes to pelvic tissue were some of the side-effects of doses well within limits of the allowable daily intake level set for humans.

These findings do much to disprove the manufacturers claim that this substance merely passes, unaltered, through the digestive tract. The makers of Splenda argue that this "remarkably stable" chemical transits, unchanged, into the urine and feces, when in fact, up to 11% to 27% is absorbed into the body (FDA, 1999).
What effects will these accumulated chemicals have on our health? According to James Bowen, M.D:
"Any chlorocarbons not excreted intact from the body can cause immense damage to the processes of human metabolism and, eventually, our internal organs.”
Warning: Heating Splenda Increases the Risks

Recent findings add increased urgency to existing safety concerns surrounding Splenda’s heat-stability. Advertised as “ideal for baking”, results show that Splenda is even more dangerous when heated to a mere 248℉.
At this relatively low-heat level, Splenda degrades into toxic compounds like chloropropanol and deadly dioxins. This evidence presents a sharp contrast to the claim that Splenda can safely be used in high-heat processes.

2. Increases risks of diabetes and obesity

Splenda is marketed as a way to “get a little sweetness in your life” without any of the concerns surrounding weight gain or sugar sensitivity. It’s becoming clear just how false this advertising really is. In fact, the trade-off may be far worse than the real thing.
Studies on human test subjects show that sucralose alters the body’s ability to process glucose, creating glucose intolerance, metabolic disturbances, and diabetes-promoting effects that are key factors in obesity. These harmful responses occur despite sucralose containing no calories and being classified as a 'non-nutritive sweetener.'

In one such trial, a single dose of sucralose led to increases in plasma glucose concentrations, a 20% increase in insulin levels, a 22% greater peak insulin secretion rate, and a 7% decrease in insulin sensitivity.

This human study linked Splenda to diabetes-associated metabolic changes, including increased appetite and weight gain, calling into question its value as a sweetener for those suffering with, or wishing to prevent, blood sugar disorders.

If these sweeteners pass through the gut intact, and are mostly unabsorbed by the body, what could be responsible for these adverse impacts on gut function and insulin response?
It’s in the Microbiota

Researchers hypothesized, and later proved, that gut microbiota drove these adverse effects, including “increased weight and waist-to-hip ratio; higher fasting blood glucose, impaired glucose tolerance, and elevated markers of fatty liver disease.”
They observed significant changes to the gut bacterial composition of mice consuming artificial sweeteners, which brings us to the next reason to avoid Splenda: its effects on the all-important intestinal microbiome.

3. Harms the GI tract

Research into the microbiome continues to yield breakthrough discoveries on the intimate relationship between the 'enteric brain' and the central nervous system. This connection may reveal previously unrecognized consequences of the use of this artificial sweetener. It’s negative impact on the microbiome is clear:

  • Sucralose reduced the number of beneficial bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract (e.g., lactobacilli, bifidobacteria),
  • While increasing the count of detrimental bacteria (e.g., enterobacteria).
  • Adverse effects on gut flora did not return to normal (baseline) despite the allowance of a 3-month recovery period.
  • Sucralose altered the pH of the gastrointestinal tract, a prime factor in the development of disease states
These findings coincide with a global uptick in inflammatory bowel disease, particularly evident in Canada, where Sucralose has been proposed to be a primary driver of this disturbing trend.

4. Contaminates breast milk

The use of sucralose has grown so prevalent, even our most vulnerable populations are incapable of opting out of exposure. A recent government-funded study found sucralose contaminated 65% of all breast milk samples assayed.

The groundbreaking study, "Nonnutritive Sweeteners in Breast Milk", found that sucralose survives maternal metabolism and enters breast milk in the majority of samples tested. The presence of non-nutritive sweeteners in the breast milk was irrespective of whether the mother knowingly consumed the substance.

Adequate proof of the safety of sucralose in infants is not available, and tests are unethical to perform in human subjects. This is one reason for the use of animals in surrogate risk assessments. One such assessment involves testing a chemical’s safety by determining the amount needed to kill 50% of rodents within a short time frame ("acute toxicity"), and then deducing an "acceptable level of harm" to humans. This is done primarily by adjusting for body weight differences between rodents and humans.

This outdated and misleading standard does not account for low-dose, chronic exposures over time, nor does it account for the synergistic toxicities of multiple chemical exposures occurring simultaneously in real-world situations. Until such rigorous testing can be performed, the use of non-nutritive sweeteners should be halted by those wishing to conceive, and women who are pregnant or breastfeeding.

5. Suppresses Thyroid Function, Disrupts Hormones

A study published in the European Journal of Nutrition is the first study of its kind to evaluate the effects of Splenda on thyroid function and metabolism.
Their findings reveal that sucralose is an endocrine disruptor: it disrupts the body’s hormonal systems. In this study, resultant effects included thyroid hormone suppression, increased appetite, and weight gain.

The researchers believed that Splenda’s adverse effects would be reflected in “thyroid histopathology,” i.e. increased instances of thyroid lesions and tumors. Could this be one of the drivers behind the mysterious global uptick in thyroid cancer diagnoses?

In this study, researchers lament the widespread use of non-nutritive sweeteners, particularly concerning due to lack of research on their effects on thyroid:
"Non-nutritive sweeteners are the most widely used food additives worldwide. However, their metabolic outcomes are still a matter of controversy and their effect on the thyroid activity, a key regulator of metabolism, has not been previously studied.”
The chief aim of this study was to reveal the effect of “sweet-type flavor on selected parameters of thyroid activity.”
105 rats were divided into 3 groups that could consume, free-choice, one of three different diets. The three, wheat starch-based diets had identical caloric content, yet differed in the following ways:

  • Diet #1 contained no sugar
  • Diet #2 contained 10 grams of sucrose (cane sugar)
  • Diet #3 contained .0167 grams of sucralose, enough to create the same sweet flavor intensity as Diet #2
Because previous research has established that carbohydrates directly affect thyroid, this study was designed to isolate only the difference between the artificial and natural sweetener. Results indicated that both the presence and type of sweet-flavor carrier effects thyroid activity.

Compared to the diet with cane sugar which stimulates thyroid activity, sucralose diminished thyroid hormone activity. Additionally, key hormone concentrations (T4 & T3) were lower for subjects eating sucralose than in either the sugary or non-sweet diets. Researchers determined that sucralose significantly altered the thyroid and metabolic functions of the animals, with symptoms resembling those of hypothyroidism.

This study proved sucralose is not metabolically inert, the claim often made when questions of toxicity are raised. The results provide compelling evidence that the difference in thyroid and metabolic effects observed between the study groups were due to sucralose's significant and complex toxicological properties.

For more information and the latest medical research, check out GreenMedInfo’s sucralose research database.
Check out the research on the health benefits of natural sweeteners like honey, and stevia, a no-calorie alternative to synthetic sweeteners.

 

I have switched to Stevia from Splenda in the last year. Also cut out many of the sugar free products I was eating....not good for you, just as bad as real sugar in my opinion.

i know if you're diabetic you may not have other options but I'd still eat less.
 
The only sweeteners I use is honey and coffee creamer when I have it of course!:playful:
 

Last edited:
It is hard to know what is safe to use as a sweetener anymore ! It seems like every industry tries to discredit any sweetener besides the ones they make. Sugar companies fund a lot of the studies done for non-caloric sweeteners, just as other companies fund the studies done against the dangers of sugar.
Even stevia is condemned by some, and said to be dangerous, and so is honey, molasses, and sorghum, all of which are natural sweeteners.
I do use splenda, and also liquid saccharin , but I do not use very much of it. I also use regular sugar, honey , sorghum, and molasses occasionally; but I don't use much of those either. I am trying to not make sweet foods a large part of my diet, regardless of how they are sweetened.
I love greek whole-milk yogurt with sorghum (treacle to you from the UK) drizzled on top; but I don't have it very often, and I think that it makes a much healthier dessert treat than a bowl of ice cream used to do.
I believe that anything that is chemically processed is probably not a good choice; and should be used with moderation.
 
I give up, lol. I spent many months getting used to the taste of Stevia. Now I don't know what to do. Maybe I'll buy both and alternate my use...at least that way I'm half right. :)

in any case, Ive cut way back on my use of artificial sweetener. I just need some in my coffee.
 
I give up, lol. I spent many months getting used to the taste of Stevia. Now I don't know what to do. Maybe I'll buy both and alternate my use...at least that way I'm half right. :)
in any case, Ive cut way back on my use of artificial sweetener. I just need some in my coffee.

Pretty much, that is what I do, too, and I agree with you that it is hard to know what is okay to use and what is not, because there is always someone condemning just about anything that a person eats or drinks nowdays. I don'tmuch like the taste of stevia, but I tried using it after reading that Splenda was as dangerous as aspartame, and other artificial sweeteners.
From what I have read, if we are eating a piece of cake (as an example), our brain expects to have to produce more insulin because of the sweet taste of the cake, regardless of whether the cake has been made with real sugar, or artificial sweetener.
So, a diabetic using the artificial sweetener, might not be getting actual sugar, but their brain thinks that they are, and produces insulin just the same as if their blood sugar has gone up from having sugar. Then, blood sugar would drop even lower, so the person new feels hungry again; which means that if you are trying to lose weight, or just watch your blood sugar, the artificial sweetener has not helped you to do that.
From what I have been reading lately, grains like wheat actually raise your blood sugar more than sugar does anyway; so even if a person doesn't use sugar, eating grains does the same thing to the body.
 
It sure has become confusing Happyflowerlady, not just with the artificial sweetener debate but everything. I'm honestly overwhelmed at times at what's good for us or not.

I don't eat gluten free because I really don't have digestive issues but in a way I do eat gluten free because I avoid wheat products just by eating low carb/good carb.

I'm actually a healthy mess, at least I hope I'm healthy...I know I'm a mess. :)
 
SeaBreeze you have seriously annoyed me with quack medical advice. Splenda has been recommended to me by my Doctor and my diabetes management team. I'll certainly heed their recommendations over some stranger on the internet.

Lol Timetrvlr, you don't have to be seriously annoyed, nobody is telling you to stop what you're doing and use Stevia, but if I had to use a sweetener besides sugar or honey due to a medical condition like diabetes, my choice would be the more natural product, Stevia.

I'm sure your doctor gave you that advice because I understand that many physicians are not trained in natural products and can't professionally recommend them. By all means, follow your doctor's recommendations.

I give up, lol. I spent many months getting used to the taste of Stevia. Now I don't know what to do. Maybe I'll buy both and alternate my use...at least that way I'm half right.

CeeCee, if I had to use a sweetener, Stevia would be my choice, simply because it's natural.

Sucralose, the no-calorie sweetening ingredient in SPLENDA® No Calorie Sweetener, is about 600 times sweeter than sugar. Like other tabletop sweeteners, the granulated and packet products contain small amounts of carbohydrate (less than 1 gram per serving) for consistent sweetening and to provide volume.

These bulking ingredients are dextrose (packets) and maltodextrin (packets and granulated). However, the bulking ingredients provide so few calories per serving that the FDA allows the SPLENDA® No Calorie Sweetener Products to be labeled no calorie sweeteners, because they provide less than five calories per serving.

Sucralose is made through a patented, multi-step process that starts with sugar and selectively replaces three hydrogen-oxygen groups on the sugar molecule with three chlorine atoms. The result is an exceptionally stable sweetener that tastes like sugar, but without sugar’s calories.

No. Sucralose is not a natural product – it is not found in nature. Although sucralose is made from sugar, the sugar molecule is chemically modified to make sucralose which is classed as an artificial sweetener.



Stevia leaf extract is both suitable and safe for people who have diabetes.

Some early studies suggested that stevia components had a blood-sugar lowering effect (hypoglycemic) on study participants. This development caught the attention global regulatory authorities and required assessment before the ingredient was deemed acceptable to be released into the global marketplace.

The first randomized, controlled trial to directly answer these concerns demonstrated that highly purified stevia leaf extract did not impact the blood glucose levels of people with type 2 diabetes. The study was published in in 2008 in the journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology.

The study used a standard, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. The 122 patients (all with type 2 diabetes mellitus) were divided into two groups and given either 1000mg of high purity stevia leaf extract or a placebo. Neither participants nor physicians knew which participants were receiving the randomly-prescribed stevia leaf extract or placebo.

The participants kept their diet and exercise stable, and kept a log. The study regularly monitored the participants’ HbA1C levels, as HbA1C levels are a reliable indicator of glycemic (blood-sugar) control over time.

Study results showed that a daily dose of 1000mg stevia leaf extract did not alter blood glucose levels in study participants.
 
I use Truvia, also made from the stevia plant. I have tried Stevia, liked Truvia better. Still every now and then I use some of the liquid pink stuff. I've changed around over the years as I hear of or read the bad news about what I was using, such as eggs, coffee, butter, etc. I'm going to stick with what I'm using unless proven beyond shadow of a doubt. I've always trusted nature over chemicals anyway.
 


Back
Top