Artifical sweeteners safe?

Sucralose (Splenda) has been on the market for 5 years and it’s already the most popular of all. Is it any safe for long tern use? They said the same thing with aspartame (Equal) initially and it turns out that it causes problems in some people. I noticed that Cytofuse has both sucralose and Acesulfame.

It’s hard to say…but think about how often you use cytofuse…everyday and multiple times per day? I don’t think 2-3 servings a week for a few years will be any problem because cell turnover of muscle is high…lead and other cancers tend to be a problem but the brain is the most important. No brain transplants so far! Just take FROST and creatine…those have been provent to help prevent organic brain disorders if you look on pubmed.

Yes, but there’s also sucralose in LC Grow!, BSL flavoring, the list continues, not just cytofuse. I guess, it just got me thinking about how much we can tolerate because this stuff is everywhere along with aspartame, and others. FROST is available now?

I agree that artificial sweeteners are everywhere but only in supplements…and those are only needed for elite atheletes and we all know a career could last only a few years. Most of the meals come from whole foods and Charlie Himself has been drinking diet coke for twenty years and his brain is working great! If he starts acting funny in ten years I will rethink things.

Check this site out, it’s got a whole list of em in there.

I’d watch maltitol because it can give serious cramps if taken in larger doses.

I guess some are more vulnerable to them. Time will tell,i guess. It’s much like smoking Cigs, it takes a long time but the ending is not very pleasant…

Acesulfame K has been around for years and I haven’t heard of much of anything as far as side effects go.

Sucralose is one of the better ones.

I get a lot of my info from hardcore natural health food freaks that do all the research and they’ve not said too much bad stuff about these.

They’re all about the stevia.

Greed is a very powerful motivation. Look at what happened to Vioxx. Tobacco. The list is long. They tried to cover some information or fudged the data so they’d appear as ‘safe’ to take. Artifical sweeteners are artifical sweeteners and that’s something we have to be caution about consuming. I am pretty sure that there are some people that are particularly vulnerable to certain substances but the big businesses do not really care since the numbers are small and they continue to bring in profits. By the time, the damages are done, the top dogs are already rich and retired. They could give a shit about what happens to the businesses if they can get away with it. FDA is about as reliable as smith machine for gaining strength. Not really reliable. They screwed up on too many occasions so I’m not going to wait around for them to do anything right so I just research these artifical substances for myself. I don’t trust the US gov’t because they stand to profit from them anyway. Another big problem is the environment wastes. We’ve been exposed to thousands of different manmade substances. I am sure some of us already have health problems that didn’t exist 20 years ago.

The motto of FDA or whoever seems to be “whatever doesn’t kill immediately is good enough!”

Sucralose is one of the better ones? interesting. It’s basically chlorinated sugar!

:smiley: One promoting it says it 100% passes through the body. Another side says as much as 35% are broken down and absorbed in the body.

technical Information

Sucralose is made from sucrose by substituting three chlorine atoms for three hydroxyl groups to yield 1,6-dichloro-1,6-dideoxy-BETA-D-fructofuranosyl-4-chloro-4-deoxy-alpha-D-galactopyranoside. This is accomplished in a five-step process.

Prolonged storage, particularly at high temperatures and low pH, causes the sucralose to break down into 4-chloro-4-deoxy-galactose (4CG) and 1,6-dichloro-1,6-dideoxyfructose (1,6 DCF),

The Chemical Abstracts Service Registry number (CAS Reg. No.) for sucralose is 56038-13-2.

Science Behind Sucralose Toxicity

Here are some of the specific biochemical reasons why you will want to give serious consideration to consuming sucralose.

Much of the concern is related to the fact that the manufacturer of sucralose claims that it is derived from sugar that contains the monosaccharide sucrose.

Look at the chemical name of sucralose: 1,6-Dichloro-1,6-dideoxy-beta-D-fructofuranosyl-4-chloro-4-deoxy-alpha-D-galactopyranoside. One would have expected that a product “made form sugar” as they say on the box, would be called: 1,6-Dichloro-1,6-dideoxy-beta-D-fructofuranosyl-4-chloro-4-deoxy-alpha-D-glucopyranoside.

Why does this molecule contain a chlorinated galactose moiety rather than a chlorinated glucose moiety if it is made from sucrose? When the molecule is hydrolyzed, chlorinated monosaccharides are produced from the product. Could it be that sucrose is not used due to the toxicity of chlorinated glucose?