Sweet Deception
Sweet Deception is the title of a book written by Dr. Mercola about the dangers of artificial sweetners.
Most people have dietary concerns about the consumption of excess sugar, but in reality it's hard stuff to give up. It's been shown in animal studies that sugar is more addictive than cocaine. Most of America is replete with sugar junkies. But those seeking reprieve for this condition often turn to artificial sweetners as a healthy alternative.
I'd like to post excerpts from a recent article posted by Dr. Mercola that explains why if given the choice artificial sweeteners are even more dangerous to your health than an excess of sugar.
There was a recent study about Splenda specifically:
New Study of Splenda Reveals Shocking Information About Potential Harmful Effects
In animals examined for the study, Splenda reduced the amount of good bacteria in the intestines by 50 percent, increased the pH level in the intestines, contributed to increases in body weight and affected P-glycoprotein (P-gp) levels in such a way that crucial health-related drugs could be rejected.
Sources:
Globe Newswire September 28, 2008
Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Part A 2008;71(21):1415-29
It’s been discovered that diet soda increases your risk of metabolic syndrome and, ultimately, heart disease.
Nearly a decade ago, studies were already revealing that artificial sweeteners can:
Stimulate your appetite
Increase carbohydrate cravings
Stimulate fat storage and weight gain
It’s been shown that diet soft drinks can double your risk of obesity!
They also found unmistakable evidence that Splenda is absorbed by fat, contrary to previous claims.
The web site www.truthaboutsplenda.com lists a variety of consumer complaints from Splenda consumption, such as:
- Gastrointestinal problems
- Migraines
- Seizures
- Dizziness
- Blurred vision
- Allergic reactions
- Blood sugar increases
- Weight gain
Splenda Has NEVER Been Proven Safe for Human Consumption (I have to point out here that I find this ironic since this is the reason the FDA gives for refusing to allow Stevia to be considered as "GRAS". Stevia is a naturally occuring plant that is historically used as a non-glycemic sweetner in many parts of the world. - DL)
As of 2006, only six human trials have been published on Splenda. Of these six trials, only two of the trials were completed and published before the FDA approved sucralose for human consumption, and the two published trials had a grand total of 36 total human subjects.
36 people sure doesn't sound like many, but wait, it gets worse: only 23 total were actually given sucralose for testing, and here is the real kicker -- The longest trial at this time had lasted only four days, and looked at sucralose in relation to tooth decay, not human tolerance.
Even more shocking, the absorption of Splenda into the human body was studied on a grand total of six men! Based on that one human study, the FDA allowed the findings to be generalized as being representative of the entire human population. Including women, children, the elderly, and those with any chronic illness -- none of whom were ever examined.
The FDA claims they reviewed over 100 studies conducted on Splenda. What they don't tell you is that most of the studies were on animals. And, those animal studies reveal plenty of problems, such as:
- Decreased red blood cells -- sign of anemia -- at levels above 1,500 mg/kg/day
- Increased male infertility by interfering with sperm production and vitality, as well as brain lesions at higher doses
- Enlarged and calcified kidneys (McNeil stated this is often seen with poorly absorbed substances and was of no toxicological significance. The FDA Final Rule agreed that these are findings that are common in aged female rats and are not significant.)
- Spontaneous abortions in nearly half the rabbit population given sucralose, compared to zero aborted pregnancies in the control group
- A 23 percent death rate in rabbits, compared to a 6 percent death rate in the control group
Splenda bears more chemical similarity to DDT than it does to sugar. It is like putting a pesticide in your body.
Sucralose is in fact a synthetic chemical that was originally cooked up in a laboratory. It does start off as a sugar molecule. Then, in a five-step patented process of making sucralose, three chlorine molecules are added to a sucrose (sugar) molecule. The chemical process to make sucralose alters the chemical composition of the sugar so much that it is somehow converted to a fructo-galactose molecule.
This type of sugar molecule does not occur in nature, and therefore your body does not possess the ability to properly metabolize it. As a result of this "unique" biochemical make-up, McNeil Nutritionals makes its claim that Splenda is not digested or metabolized by the body, hence it has zero calories.
Possible link betwee aspartame and brain cancer
The politics of sweetners
Now that the corporations have found a way to make money off of stevia, they are looking to patent its constituent parts.
***According to the patent application, protection is pending in over 100 countries, including key markets such as Europe, the US, and China.***
Shortly following, I'm sure -- is to make sure that stevia in its whole plant form is considered "adulterated" even if researchers can prove scientifically that stevia in its natural form has the same health benefits as their patented extract.
In fact under the new food safety law:
A stevia grower mentioning peer-reviewed scientific research from leading universities about the health benefits of stevia will, under this bill, face a ten-year jail sentence. The same goes for supplement producers: any violation of often very vague FDA rules, including rules against any reference to good science, will now carry a potential ten-year jail term.
I wonder if this means the corporation rights will pursue the already allowed sales of stevia as a "food additive" and suggest that continuing to allow the sale of this plant is "patent infringement".
Ground breaking study on sugars in our diet
(Excerpt from Time magazine report)
Think that all sugars are the same? They may all taste sweet to the tongue, but it turns out your body can tell the difference between glucose, fructose and sucrose, and that one of these sugars is worse for your health than the others.
In the first detailed analysis comparing how our systems respond to glucose (which is made when the body breaks down starches such as carbohydrates) and fructose, (the type of sugar found naturally in fruits), researchers at the University of California Davis report in the Journal of Clinical Investigation that consuming too much fructose can actually put you at greater risk of developing heart disease and diabetes than ingesting similar amounts of glucose
But don't expect to be able to exercise your new sugar-smarts at the grocery store quite yet. Most of the sugar we encounter in products and in restaurants isn't glucose, but rather high fructose corn syrup or sucrose, each a combination of glucose and fructose (sucrose is an even 50-50 split between the two, while high fructose corn syrup comes in either 55%-45% fructose-glucose or 42%-58% pairings). It's difficult to find anything that's mostly glucose, which means our sweeteners are setting us up for weight gain, and more insidiously, metabolic changes that can make us more prone to heart disease and diabetes.
Though to me it's clear that this needs further study, there is mounting scientific evidence that high fructose corn syrup is indeed causing severe health issues in the general populous (even if you discount the mercury contamination).
What I would like to see is if processing effects the impact that fructose has on the body. There is evidence to suggest that the molecular changes of processing a food interferes with our organ's ability to process the same food.
Do fresh fruits have compounds that offset the health detriment of eating fructose?
Definitely the study notes that the natural sugars in an apple or a carrot are a lot less than what we are conditioned to find tasty. The underlying problem is the habits we form with convenience foods and what we're training our taste buds to crave. One researcher quoted in this study comments:
Willett, for one, isn't convinced that glucose-based sweeteners are an attractive option for soda makers. "I don't think any beverage company out there is considering putting pure glucose into their product," he says. "It doesn't have the same level of sweetness."
Instead, he is advocating a drastic change in the sugar content of sodas. His Department of Nutrition is urging manufacturers to produce a line of beverages containing only 1 gm of sugar per ounce, a 70% reduction in sugar content. It's all part of a campaign to re-train the American sweet tooth. "If children grow up with everything tasting super sweet, then it's hard for them to appreciate he gentle sweetness of a fresh carrot or an apple," he says. "Part of this is deconditioning palates to a much more natural level of sweetness." That certainly won't be easy, but it will surely be worth it. We could have our sugar and stay healthy too.
High Fructose Corn Syrup
My brother mentioned to me that high fructose corn syrup differs from other sweetners in that it doesn't give the body a signal of "fullness". Sorry if that was already mentioned in above link--but link currently broke.
oops, sorry, my link didn't work there--fixed I hope...
New link on fructose/heart disease study
Too Much Sugar Is Bad, But Which Sugar Is Worse: Fructose Or Glucose?
Refined foods and sugars contribute to depression
A friend of mine who counsels recovering addicts referred me to this article that substantiates the claims made on the (what might be called a"liberal") site I referenced.
It's a fascinating article:
The Science of Refined Food Addiction
"Using brain imaging techniques, neuroscientist Gene-Jack Wang, MD, observed that overeating behavior in morbidly obese individuals is similar to the loss of control and compulsive drug use seen in drug-addicted subjects. He and his team used PET scans to see if obese subjects had similar brain deficits. They measured brain dopamine reward/pleasure receptor levels in subjects with body mass index more than 40. They found these morbidly obese subjects had reductions in dopamine receptors, which were similar to those they observed in drug-addicted subjects (Wang, 2009)."
It was forwarded to me in response to the following article:
Processed food could have Role in Depression