PKU is inherited BUT you can carry the gene but not HAVE PKU but can pass it on to your unborn baby if your PHEs are not controlled. You may know or may not know you have it PHEs(phenylalanine, an amino acid) which is found in artificial sweetners
9/26/12 10:02 P
I think Splenda is fine in moderation. I put splenda in my coffee daily, but only a pack or two. When I bake I just use regular sugar though.
I have found that using " substitute " foods , or sweeteners, just makes me crave more of the real thing, so I just abstain.
It is really about how it affects you though, isn't it? If it keeps you from ingesting sugar, with no side effects.. awesome for you. I can't think of many things more dangerous than sugar, that we willingly put into our bodies.
9/26/12 4:27 A
As a diabetic, I can't tell you how happy I am that there is finally an artificial sweetener that doesn't taste terrible. When I was first diagnosed at 9, aspartame and gross baked goods laden with "sugar alcohols" (which by the way are not in Splenda) were pretty depressing.
However, what was more depressing was my mothers friends (most of whom were fairly extreme natural foods supplement chugging new age types) telling me that the diet sodas I occasionally drank were going to give me cancer. Please think and do actual research before spreading misinformation. I can't tell you how much it still frustrates me that even some doctors will pass on chain letter wisdom when it comes to this sort of thing. Even the often referenced study that showed the chemicals in sweet and low caused cancer in rats was recently shown to be inaccurate. The only reason to avoid artificial sweeteners is if it triggers cravings for real sugar, or if you are trying to avoid other ingredients that tend to be in products that also contain artificial sweeteners.
Thanks Kitties. I had not known enough about PKU, and after a google search after your post disclaiming the previous statement, it appears that reliable sources indicate you are 100% right and PKU absolutely CANNOT be prevented by diet. It is purely a genetic mutation and not at all caused by dietary choices in the pregnant mother.
Boy, you gotta watch what you "hear", don'tcha?!
9/26/12 2:56 A
"In rare cases, artificial sweeteners are associated with a severe birth defect called phenylketonuria (PKU), which makes it impossible for a person to process the amino acid phenylalanine. PKU may be prevented by following a low-phenylalanine diet during pregnancy, which often involves avoiding artificial sweeteners and limiting protein intake."
PKU is caused by an inherited genetic mutation. Infants are typically screened for this at birth (at least in the US) and are then are placed on a diet that is low in the amino acid phenylalanine (present in things like meat, dairy, eggs, etc., and also present in the artificial sweetener aspartame). PKU cannot be prevented by following any diet or by avoiding artificial sweeteners and it is not caused by ingesting artificial sweeteners. It is an autosomal recessive metabolic disorder (inherited and requires both parents to carry the mutated gene).
"I think something that is grown in nature should in turn be better for you than some chemicals."
Take deadly nightshade, arsenic, and spider venom. Every one of them an entirely 100% "natural" substance. But they are all deadly.
"Natural" does NOT equal healthy. "Chemical" does NOT equal unhealthy.
As I've stated in this thread already, there are no known issues with using an artificial sweetener, but we do know the very bad side effects of ingesting lots of sugar. Avoiding both is best - stay away from sweet things. But if your sweet tooth simply won't let you, the scientific verdict at the moment is that you're FAR healthier to use artifical sweeteners than to ingest lots of purely natural sugar with its loaded unnecessary calories.
Choosing food in less processed forms and choosing to avoid most preservatives and additions by making your own from scratch is always a good healthy choice. But "natural = safe and chemical = unsafe" is simply NOT clear enough to be a blanket statement. There are instances, like this one, where the chemical product is known to be far safer for you than the natural one.
Edited by: UNIDENT at: 9/26/2012 (02:39)
9/25/12 5:12 P
Not evil (no morality in an inanimate object) but I don't like the taste.
9/25/12 5:07 P
Evil. I think of it this way. Natural sugar that comes from the ground is healthier as long as it is eaten in healthy quantities. Splenda is some chemical concoction made by man. I think something that is grown in nature should in turn be better for you than some chemicals. When I eat something with splenda in it I don't feel well afterwards. It is not good for you.
According the Mayo clinic "When eaten in large amounts, usually more than 50 grams but sometimes as little as 10 grams, sugar alcohols can have a laxative effect, causing bloating, intestinal gas and diarrhea" In rare cases, artificial sweeteners are associated with a severe birth defect called phenylketonuria (PKU), which makes it impossible for a person to process the amino acid phenylalanine. PKU may be prevented by following a low-phenylalanine diet during pregnancy, which often involves avoiding artificial sweeteners and limiting protein intake. In addition, research published in the journal "Early Human Development" in July 2004 indicates that infants who consume the artificial sweetener sucrose may possess less ability to sense or respond to pain.
Fitness Minutes: (1,441)
9/25/12 1:15 P
I don't think it's evil, but I do try to limit processed foods and this would include something like sucralose. I do find it has a bit of an aftertaste, although not as nasty to me as aceusulfame potatssium.
For me personally I avoid chemical sweeteners. They do not taste good to me and I like honey and maple just fine! I how ever am not diabetic and I do not have a problem with over eating sweets and use other methods to lose weight than cutting sugar. But it is awesome for others, I say if you dont mind the taste and it works for you...great! Everything in moderation anyway right?
There is zero evidence that any artificial sweetener on the market today offers any long term issues to the human body at the intake levels at which we take them.
Any scare-lore you've read about how dangerous these things are or what they have in them is based on massive, MASSIVE doses given to rats to see what would happen. We are not rats, and we do not eat kilograms of splenda per day.
On the other hand, we DO know the significant long term health effects of eating lots of sugar.
If you can't eliminate sweet treats, then use artificial sweeteners.
9/24/12 3:33 P
I don't use Splenda or any other artificial sweeteners, at least in part because I think they taste nasty. I'm a huge skeptic when it comes to so-called "miracle" products like artificial foods. I think God did a much better job at creating ingredients than man ever could, and man's versions frequently turn out to be toxic or cancer-causing.
9/24/12 2:25 P
I think it's fine. I use Splenda, in moderation, to sweeten certain foods. It has helped me to cut calories and lose weight. It is a well-researched product that has been used for many years by millions of people.
The fact that Splenda is a man-made product does not mean that it is bad, harmful or evil. There are plenty of man-made products that help people tremendously. On the other hand, just because something is natural does not mean that it is safe or helpful. There are plenty of natural things that are actually quite deadly (e.g. arsenic, tetrodotoxin, snake venom, asbestos, poisonous mushroom toxin).
Splenda isn't for everyone though. For example, some people who use artificial sweeteners of any kind do end up craving more sweets and these people may end up eating more calories as a result.
Fitness Minutes: (5,071)
293 9/24/12 2:10 P
What are y'alls thoughts on Splenda in moderation?
SparkPeople, SparkCoach, SparkPages, SparkPoints, SparkDiet, SparkAmerica, SparkRecipes, DailySpark, and other marks are trademarks of SparkPeople, Inc. All Rights Reserved. No portion of this website can be used without the permission of SparkPeople or its authorized affiliates.
SPARKPEOPLE is a registered trademark of SparkPeople, Inc. in the United States, European Union, Canada, and Australia. All rights reserved.