A friend of mine was skeptic about using artificial sweeteners (non-nutritive sweeteners) as a replacement for her usual table sugar for coffee, cakes, or what not. She did some digging and send me this link.
The Newest Dangerous Sweetener to Hit Your Food Shelves... http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/02/08/neotame-receives-fda-approval-but-is-not-widely-used-yet.aspx
Since I've read enough articles like this in the past, just by looking at the title, I knew it was another scare tactic to encourage "real sugar" consumption by the "alternative/detox" industry and does more harm for ppl's weight loss effort than good.
The articles referenced in this article are all "reports", "cohort", and rat studies" in regards to aspartame that has very litttle applicability to the way we consume them today. (on top of that, every link I tried to open wants me to subscribe to his newsletter and buy his crap)
Using zero calorie artificial sweeteners to reduce sugar intake is crucial to dieter's success and adherence in a calorie reduction diet (and I'll explain why in a min).
The relevancy of these rats studies simply doesn't apply to us. The dosage on rats were proportionally far greater in comparison to average human consumption and feeding them far more frequently then a person would. on top of that, rodent physiology is very different from ours.
The relevancy of these rats studies simply doesn't apply to us. The dosage on rats were proportionally far greater in comparison to average human consumption and feeding them far more frequently then a person would. on top of that, rodent physiology is very different from ours.
Every single cells in our body are always cleansing, detoxing, reaching homeostasis. When we're exposed to small and infrequent toxic agents, it will be either oxidated or pass through. that is assuming these sweeteners are toxic in the first place... they're not, and i'll get to that.
from leagains.com
"Aspartame was found to cause brain cancer in rodents, but no human trial has ever shown a link to cancer, or any other serious disease, for that matter. This has been examined extensively; for example, see this study with almost half a million subjects -http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/full/15/9/1654?ijkey=ac6c97b1ce31ada1c45888d3101fd0b9d5901fe7
And here's another one -http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/18/1/40
the consenus is that aspartame is very safe for human consumption.
Also, I should note that the rodent studies used such extreme dosages that it would be impossible for any human to ingest that amount save from walking around with an IV-drip of pure aspartame 24/7."
Also, I should note that the rodent studies used such extreme dosages that it would be impossible for any human to ingest that amount save from walking around with an IV-drip of pure aspartame 24/7."
The priority here is to lose the body fat and if someone just can't cut the sweets out of their diet to achieve fat loss, zero calorie sweeteners can help.
If you're unsure about the effects of ingesting zero calories sweeteners (even though there's no real scientific proof, short-term or long-term that they're harmful) then don't use it. However, some dieters simply can't completely wipe out their taste buds for sweets. sugar substitutes can help in this case especially for those who are insulant resistance, obese, and diabetic.
If you're not one of them then drink your water, just stop pestering/scaring other people what they want to do with their diet. Your useless reports and rat studies can seriously limit overweight dieters the choice to choose, which in term affect their long term adherance to their diet.
If you're not one of them then drink your water, just stop pestering/scaring other people what they want to do with their diet. Your useless reports and rat studies can seriously limit overweight dieters the choice to choose, which in term affect their long term adherance to their diet.
If you're ok with drinking water instead of diet soda, fine, do that, this post is not for you.
Here are some REAL scientific evidence from the literature that actually use appropriate protocols to test the treatment/ingestion of artificial sweeteners and its applicability to our health and weight loss.
1. Artificial Sweeteners: A Systematic Review of Metabolic Effects in Youth: "Presently, there is no strong clinical evidence for causality regarding artificial sweetener use and metabolic health effects"
2. The Truth about Artificial Sweeteners: "Based on these studies and the extensive animal safety database, there is no indication that adverse effects on human health would occur from frequent or long-term exposure to sucralose at the maximum anticipated levels of intake"
3. Sucrose compared with artificial sweeteners: "Different effects on ad libitum food intake and body weight after 10 wk of supplementation in overweight subjects... Conclusions: Overweight subjects who consumed fairly large amounts of sucrose (28% of energy), mostly as beverages, had increased energy intake, body weight, fat mass, and blood pressure after 10 wk. These effects were not observed in a similar group of subjects who consumed artificial sweeteners"
4. Meta-analysis Shows Aspartame Effective For Weight Loss: "Incorporating aspartame-sweetened food products into the diet does result in weight loss, says a new meta-analysis that fills a gap in the science behind the sweetener."
Bottomline is, the hunderd of people who substituted table sugar with zero-calorie sweeteners lost massive amount of body fat and improve other health markers in these experiments, seriously, click on the studies and read them. If you don't like the fake sugar, don't use it but don't try to scare others who might need it.
Read my published articles on Examiner.com on weight loss and sports nutrition.
Learn more about my Programs
Check out my Champions
Find out how HIT Center Austin Can help you reach your fitness goals today!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
update:
4-26-2011
Stevia extracts can have up to 300 times the sweetness of sugar, making them a popular additive for consumers on low-sugar, low-carbohydrate diets
The Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) spent more than a decade reviewing the safety of steviol glycosides, which give the plant its sweetness. Its first acceptable daily intake was established in 2000, and that number has steadily increased as more evidence of stevia’s safety becomes available
“For the addition of stevia-derived sweeteners into various foods to occur, the regulatory and safety considerations with the sweeteners extracted from stevia leaves had to be addressed to ensure that such food offerings met the regulatory requirements,” Dr. McQuate writes. “The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and numerous regulatory bodies and expert panels worldwide have undertaken rigorous evaluations of the composite safety information to protect the well-being of consumers.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bottomline is, the hunderd of people who substituted table sugar with zero-calorie sweeteners lost massive amount of body fat and improve other health markers in these experiments, seriously, click on the studies and read them. If you don't like the fake sugar, don't use it but don't try to scare others who might need it.
Read my published articles on Examiner.com on weight loss and sports nutrition.
Learn more about my Programs
Check out my Champions
Find out how HIT Center Austin Can help you reach your fitness goals today!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
update:
4-26-2011
Vast Body of Research Means Consumers Can Use Stevia with Confidence
http://www.newswise.com/articles/vast-body-of-research-means-consumers-can-use-stevia-with-confidenceStevia extracts can have up to 300 times the sweetness of sugar, making them a popular additive for consumers on low-sugar, low-carbohydrate diets
The Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) spent more than a decade reviewing the safety of steviol glycosides, which give the plant its sweetness. Its first acceptable daily intake was established in 2000, and that number has steadily increased as more evidence of stevia’s safety becomes available
“For the addition of stevia-derived sweeteners into various foods to occur, the regulatory and safety considerations with the sweeteners extracted from stevia leaves had to be addressed to ensure that such food offerings met the regulatory requirements,” Dr. McQuate writes. “The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and numerous regulatory bodies and expert panels worldwide have undertaken rigorous evaluations of the composite safety information to protect the well-being of consumers.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 comments:
I was referenced to this ad http://www.naturalpedia.com/aspartame.html regarding the danger of aspartame from a concerned toxin expert on facebook and was attacked about my approach to helping my clients improve health. This is my respond.
JY: since you have the real info and studied for 12years, please explain how are aspartame metabolized in the human body? how are they 'toxifying' our body? at the molecular level please, and do reference.
Know-It-All says: "Go to naturalnews.com, 2nd category in the green bar on top "reference information", open "naturalpedia" scroll down to "ingredients", tag aspartame, and start reading, it's just the tip of the iceberg of info out there on this neurotoxin. I know how it works, do your own homework before sitting all high and mighty looking down your nose on people who know what you don't. You'll never find the real truth on any mainstream media outlet, because they know where their money comes from. Follow the money trail."
JY: "this is hilarious, I asked for research (and hopefully the mechanisms), as in clinical trials from major science journals (something you can track down on pubmed) yet you had me reading 15 pages full of ads for why I should waste my money. speaking of money trails and government consipiracies, do you get a cut talking about "xylitol" on facebook? :)
the mechanism. Aspartame is made up of two amino acids, aspartic acid and phenylalanine, both found in dietary proteins. That means all human on this planet right now who's ever eaten FOOD and are not DEAD are basically consuming these two amino acids (again, found in aspartame) DAILY unless you're on some misguided vegan diet where all you eat is candy and cupcakes or chronic fasting for religious or social/political reasons.
videos of "proofs" and reports (anecdote/case studies) has way too many confounding variables, but unfortunately that's what sells, cuz they're sensationalized, especially when pushed by doctors and hippie/alternative medicine marketers. here's a brief summary of a few aspartame-scare myths debunked. http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Truth-about-Artificial-Sweeteners&id=397056. if you actually believe aspartame (basically found in all food other than pure fat or super refined sugar) is dangerous, then stop drinking your diet coke at the 12th can (USDA limit). I personally don't get headaches until my 27th. lol and stop eating proteins that contain the two amino acids (basically all protein sources).
words, they mean things, so read them. Here's a good start. http://neurology.org/search?fulltext=aspartame&author1&pubdate_year&volume&firstpage&submit=yes
The only proven issue with aspartame is with individuals who have a disorder known as "phenylketonuria". Phenylketonuria is a human genetic disorder, in which the body does not contain the enzyme, phenylalanine hydroxylase, necessary to metabolize phenylalanine to tyrosine and converts phenylalanine instead to phenylpyruvic acid. Left untreated, phenylpyruvic acid can cause brain damage and progressive mental retardation as a result of its accumulation. Other than that, Aspartame is one of the most clinically studied chemicals in the world, with an overall excellent safety profile."
Aspartame: review of safety. Butchko HH, Stargel WW, Comer CP, Mayhew DA, Benninger C, Blackburn GL, de Sonneville LM, Geha RS, Hertelendy Z, Koestner A, Leon AS, Liepa GU, McMartin KE, Mendenhall CL, Munro IC, Novotny EJ, Renwick AG, Schiffman SS, Schomer DL, Shaywitz BA, Spiers PA, Tephly TR, Thomas JA, Trefz FK.
Over 20 years have elapsed since aspartame was approved by regulatory agencies as a sweetener and flavor enhancer. The safety of aspartame and its metabolic constituents was established through extensive toxicology studies in laboratory animals, using much greater doses than people could possibly consume. Its safety was further confirmed through studies in several human subpopulations, including healthy infants, children, adolescents, and adults; obese individuals; diabetics; lactating women; and individuals heterozygous (PKUH) for the genetic disease phenylketonuria (PKU) who have a decreased ability to metabolize the essential amino acid, phenylalanine. Several scientific issues continued to be raised after approval, largely as a concern for theoretical toxicity from its metabolic components--the amino acids, aspartate and phenylalanine, and methanol--even though dietary exposure to these components is much greater than from aspartame. Nonetheless, additional research, including evaluations of possible associations between aspartame and headaches, seizures, behavior, cognition, and mood as well as allergic-type reactions and use by potentially sensitive subpopulations, has continued after approval. These findings are reviewed here. The safety testing of aspartame has gone well beyond that required to evaluate the safety of a food additive. http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Truth-about-Artificial-Sweeteners&id=397056
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Mercola
For you Mercola holistic health nut, snake oil readers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Mercola
For you Mercola holistic health nut, snake oil readers
Post a Comment