RedBook
EscortsPremier Adult Entertainment Community HOME | ADS | FORUM myredbok
Subject: "Sugar Substitutes: What's Their Real Value?" Archived thread - Read only
 
  Previous Topic | Next Topic
printerPrinter Friendly view     picviewPic view    
Conferences > Special Interest > Medical Center > Topic #3128
Reading Topic #3128

Farrah88 Farrah88 rating
Member since 28-Apr-08
9478 posts, 57 feedbacks, 107 points
26-May-10, 03:43 AM (PST)
Click to send private message to Farrah88 Farrah88 profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
"Sugar Substitutes: What's Their Real Value?"
 

About 15 percent of Americans use sugar substitutes to cut calories, control diabetes, or prevent cavities. Yet just how much is safe to consume?

Sugar-free foods and drinks are lower in calories than their full sugar alternatives, but are they good options for weight loss? While sugar substitutes are generally safe, the debate about how they should be used continues.

Sugar Substitutes: A Short and Sweet History
The first sugar substitute, saccharin, was discovered in the late 1800s and gained prominence in manufacturing during the World Wars, when sugar was rationed. The business of sugar-free foods and drinks began to boom in the 1960s when clinicians realized the importance of controlling weight gain in the management of diabetes.

Since then, as people became more health-conscious and wanted to shun sugar, manufacturers responded with a host of sugar substitutes. They are:
Aspartame, approved in 1981 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and now in more than 6,000 foods and drinks
Acesulfame-K, FDA-approved in 1988
Sucralose (Splenda, SucraPlus), approved in 1998 for limited use and in 1999 for general use
Neotame, approved in 2002
Other sugar substitutes are being developed, and many products contain a mix of sugar substitutes to enhance flavor. Each sugar substitute is several thousand times sweeter than sugar, but has a slightly different flavor. Whether you reach for the pink, blue, or yellow packet to sweeten your coffee is a matter of personal taste. Sugar substitutes are now so common that many people use them without consciously considering their use as a weight-loss strategy.
Sugar Substitutes: Their Role in Your Diet

There's more content below this advertisement. Jump to the content.

As part of an overall healthy diet, sugar substitutes are believed to reduce calories and the risk of cavities. Interestingly, controlled studies that compare weight loss between people who use sugar substitutes and those who consume sugar show very little difference in weight loss between the two groups, although over the long term, sugar substitutes can help maintain weight loss.

Conscious calorie-cutting strategies can include sugar-free products. Replacing a sugary drink with a sugar-free drink will reduce your calorie intake, and cutting back by just one full sugar soda a day could result in losing over 1.4 pounds in 18 months. The key to losing weight using sugar-free products is to use them strategically.

Sugar Substitutes: How Much Can You Have?
A big question surrounding sugar substitutes is how much diet soda is safe to drink. Though you might never consider consuming this much in a day, the FDA says these are the maximum amounts allowable for daily consumption, listed by type of sugar substitute:
Aspartame: 18 to 19 cans of diet soda
Saccharin: 9 to 12 packets
Acesulfame-K: 30 to 32 cans of diet soda
Sucralose: 6 cans of diet soda
Sugar Substitutes: Reality Check

A realistic use of sugar-free products looks quite different.

A regular amount for a sugar substitute is two servings a day, says dietitian Liz Weinandy, RD, MPH, a dietitian in the non-surgical weight-loss program at Ohio State University Medical Center in Columbus. “My concern comes when people do multiple servings, like a six-pack of diet pop a day. Many times they are trying to use a sugar substitute in place of food. Some are very nutritious, like light yogurt, but while sugar-free soda doesn’t have calories, it also doesn’t have stuff in it that’s good for you.”

Further, consuming a lot of sugar-free drinks could hurt your weight-loss strategy. Studies show that when a sugar substitute is added to a product that has no other nutritional content (such as water), it increases hunger. This is true regardless of the type of sugar substitute used. Sugar substitutes in foods do not have this effect.
Sugar Substitutes: Who Should Avoid Them
While sugar substitutes are generally considered safe, Weinandy advises against giving children sugar-free foods and drinks — unless a doctor has said otherwise — and says pregnant women also should be cautious. “Drink water or fruit juice during pregnancy,” Weinandy suggests. “Limit diet pop to one per day at most.”

Additionally, people who have the disease phenylketonuria need to avoid aspartame, which contains phenylalanine, one of the amino acids in protein. Phenylketonuria is a genetic disorder in which the body cannot fully break down phenylalanine. If levels of it get too high in the blood, mental retardation could result.

For most people, sugar substitutes are a safe alternative to sugar. They may be helpful, in reasonable amounts, with weight loss and weight management when they are part of a balanced, healthy diet.

  Alert Top

 
Conferences | Forums | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

tangoman tangoman rating
Member since 19-Jan-05
3990 posts, 42 feedbacks, 83 points
29-May-10, 09:00 AM (PST)
Click to send private message to tangoman tangoman profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
1. "RE: Sugar Substitutes: What's Their Real Value?"
In response to message #0
 
   Stevia, a natural sweetener, is better than any others, according to Anderew Weil, MD.

  Alert Top

MarcusWelby MarcusWelby rating
Member since 6-Dec-07
120 posts, 1 feedbacks, 2 points
30-May-10, 08:10 AM (PST)
Click to send private message to MarcusWelby MarcusWelby profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
2. "RE: Sugar Substitutes: What's Their Real Value?"
In response to message #1
 
   >Stevia, a natural sweetener, is better than any others,
>according to Anderew Weil, MD.


Why ?

Do you consider him a trusted source ?

  Alert Top

dong dong rating
Member since 5-Dec-03
1627 posts, 51 feedbacks, 101 points
30-May-10, 02:15 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to dong dong profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
3. "RE: Sugar Substitutes: What's Their Real Value?"
In response to message #2
 
Andrew Weil is a trusted source -- google him ... he is a great resource..


Stevia is much better because it does not interact with your insulun level, like sugar or sugar substitutes..

It is a natural plant originially grown in south america.. Stevia is now 40 percent of the sweetener market in Japan. In the US, the sugar industry has been lobbying against it, in the early 90's they got it banned as a dangerous substance by the FDA, then as the pre ponderance of evidence grew, they had it modified to be sold in the US. unfortunately, the sugar industry forced them only sell stevia in the US that is "whole plant" ... so there is a bit of a tartness to it that some detect... if they could use just the leaves, like in Japan, and not the stems as well... it would taste even better.

You can get a box of stevia packets in Trader Joes very inexpensively. There have been recent articles that the Coca-Cola company was looking into using it in a "new coke" but could not because of the US laws about "What is Stevia" .. ie .. leaf only or stems + leaf..

I personally am outraged that with diabetes being as big as it is in the US .. that any sweetener that does not interact with insulin levels is being hamstrung by the powers that be..

dong

  Alert Top

Farrah88 Farrah88 rating
Member since 28-Apr-08
9478 posts, 57 feedbacks, 107 points
09-Jun-10, 11:00 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to Farrah88 Farrah88 profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
5. "RE: Sugar Substitutes: What's Their Real Value?"
In response to message #3
 
Safeway now sells it as I purchased several boxes of it.... I learned about this sugar substitute in 05 in college... Thanks for the information

  Alert Top

MarcusWelby MarcusWelby rating
Member since 6-Dec-07
120 posts, 1 feedbacks, 2 points
22-Jun-10, 10:50 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to MarcusWelby MarcusWelby profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
8. "RE: Sugar Substitutes: What's Their Real Value?"
In response to message #3
 
   Stevia is also at Costco, but it did not sell well, so Equal packets are returning and the stevia will be discontinued.

  Alert Top

HMS916 HMS916 rating
Member since 21-May-06
559 posts, 25 feedbacks, 49 points
09-Jun-10, 01:22 AM (PST)
Click to send private message to HMS916 HMS916 profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
4. "RE: Sugar Substitutes: What's Their Real Value?"
In response to message #0
 
lets not forget "High Fructose Corn Syrup" which is fructose from Corn its an artificial sweetener as well you can find it in Honey, soda cans, regular coke. sprite, Dr.Pepper. Jams, or even bread and cakes and ice creams. its poison for diabetics

only in America HMS

  Alert Top

Twinklebro Twinklebro rating
Member since 18-Jul-05
1140 posts, 24 feedbacks, 48 points
22-Jun-10, 00:22 AM (PST)
Click to send private message to Twinklebro Twinklebro profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
6. "RE: Sugar Substitutes: What's Their Real Value?"
In response to message #4
 
Frutcose is not artificial. Doctors are on the fence about how bad a moderate corn syrup consumption is for non diabetics.

  Alert Top

Elfen Elfen rating
Member since 5-Dec-05
2126 posts, 31 feedbacks, 59 points
22-Jun-10, 11:41 AM (PST)
Click to send private message to Elfen Elfen profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
7. "RE: Sugar Substitutes: What's Their Real Value?"
In response to message #6
 
Fructose = sugar in honey, certain fruits and root vegetables. It is NOT artificial.

  Alert Top

massageman2020 massageman2020 rating
Member since 21-Dec-02
8572 posts, 62 feedbacks, 107 points
14-Jul-10, 04:46 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to massageman2020 massageman2020 profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
9. "RE: Sugar Substitutes: What's Their Real Value?"
In response to message #0
 
Studies show that when a sugar substitute is added to a product that has no other nutritional content (such as water), it increases hunger. This is true regardless of the type of sugar substitute used.

I was told--but have not verified by a rigorous source--that some studies showed that those who drink sugar free beverages with a meal tend to eat the same amount of calories in additional food.

They did a disservice by recommending fruit juices. Fruit juice is emphatically NOT the same as a serving of fruit. Without the roughage of the fruit "body", fruit juices have the same insulin response as sugar tablets or sugar water. The roughage and fiber in a whole fruit significantly slow sugar absorption and tend to add nutritional enhancers like bioflavonoids.

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.

  Alert Top

polarwatch polarwatch rating
Member since 8-Jun-10
580 posts, 5 feedbacks, 10 points
15-Jul-10, 08:58 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to polarwatch polarwatch profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
10. "RE: Sugar Substitutes: What's Their Real Value?"
In response to message #0
 
   NO NO NO NO!!!! listen up...we live in a society full of misconceptions about everything especially food and its all driven by capitalism. If you want to be as healthy as possible you need to eat food that occurs in nature thats why its here...for us to eat, not manufactured SHIT that man has made and destroyed whatever if any nutritonal value it ever had.
Most of this man made crap is nothing more then a chemistry experiment that will over time rob you of your health.

remember this if you tell a lie long enough it will become the truth that said most people haven't got a clue to what there talking about

  Alert Top

1andOnlyCallieWells 1andOnlyCallieWells rating
Member since 17-Nov-09
178 posts, 11 feedbacks, 22 points
18-Jul-10, 12:33 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to 1andOnlyCallieWells 1andOnlyCallieWells profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
11. "RE: Sugar Substitutes: What's Their Real Value?"
In response to message #10
 
   LAST EDITED ON 18-Jul-10 AT 12:34 PM (PST)
 
I know I dont post here much, but I just had to jump in on this
topic.


I agree with Polarwatch, EAT FOOD!! Eating real food is now known as "clean eating". It's horrible that just eating real food now has a name to it. Like Atkins Diet, or South beach Diet.

Sugar substitutes are exactly that, like all the other processed crap. It is a subsitiute for real food.

Not only is eating processed food making us all fat, but it is killing us fast!! We can hardly digest most of these chemicals, so they sit in our digestive tract depleting our immune system. Which is why we remain so sick all the time!!

Its time we think about prevention of sickness instead of cures!!

I remember a commercial for a fast food restaurant..

"Our Chicken Nuggets are now made with all white meat"

NOW made with all white meat? Dang, what where they made with before? Why can't I have chicken nuggets made with chicken?

Never have I craved all white meat product for dinner, Nor have I ever woke up and said "Dang, Disodium Insonate sounds soooo good right now!!


The link below talks about a book called "Food Rules" Its an easy read and its very informative. The book costs about 8 bucks. If it doesn't chnage how you eat period, At least it will raise awareness as to what we are putting in our bodies. After all.. FOOD IS SUPPOSED TO BE FUEL!!


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-pollan/food-rules-a-completely-d_b_410173.html


Callie...Wearing nothing but a smile.

  Alert Top

MarcusWelby MarcusWelby rating
Member since 6-Dec-07
120 posts, 1 feedbacks, 2 points
18-Jul-10, 08:34 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to MarcusWelby MarcusWelby profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
12. "RE: Sugar Substitutes: What's Their Real Value?"
In response to message #11
 
  
>Sugar substitutes are exactly that, like all the other
>processed crap. It is a subsitiute for real food.


What ? It's not a substitute for food. It is in addition to or part of. Please explain.

>Not only is eating processed food making us all fat, but it
>is killing us fast!!


No, it's the caloric intake vs. caloric expenditure which causes weight gain.

>We can hardly digest most of these
>chemicals, so they sit in our digestive tract depleting our
>immune system. Which is why we remain so sick all the time!!


This is sheer baloney. All the sugars and sweeteners are easily digested and/or absorbed. Even in excessive amounts, the worst case is one will get osmotic diarrhea, such as with mannitol.

Please give us the origin of what you have posted.


>"Our Chicken Nuggets are now made with all white meat"
>
> NOW made with all white meat? Dang, what where they made
>with before? Why can't I have chicken nuggets made with
>chicken?

You can and have. They said that because chicken also has dark meat, and that had more fat and was less expensive. So the new Nuggets are supposedly better.

> After all.. FOOD IS SUPPOSED TO BE FUEL!!


No, in this case there is not a "supposed to be". Food is a fuel, but that's not a supposed to be.

  Alert Top

Tomcat69moderator Tomcat69 rating
Member since 27-Sep-04
9131 posts, 140 feedbacks, 278 points
20-Jul-10, 04:23 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to Tomcat69 Tomcat69 profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
13. "RE: Sugar Substitutes: What's Their Real Value?"
In response to message #11
 
Hey Callie, fancy running into you in here. No, I am not stalking you.

I am a big fan of Dr. Weil. I have copied an article from his website along the lines of what you are saying.



http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/ART02840/How-to-Eat-in-Seven-Words.html


How to Eat in Seven Words

"Eat food," said Michael Pollan. "Not too much. Mostly plants."

Seven words - short ones, no less, totaling eight syllables. Easy to spell, translate, or jot on a sticky note. But really, is that all that needs to be said?

Pollan - a journalism professor at the University of California at Berkeley and author of the bestselling book The Omnivore's Dilemma - admits that boiling down advice on how human beings should eat to a mere seven words is dicey. A great deal, for example, depends on how one defines "food."

But in a rousing presentation to a packed room of health professionals at the Fourth Annual Nutrition and Science Conference in San Diego, Calif., on May 2, 2007, Pollan argued that Americans have gone astray when it comes to thinking about food. While other cultures define food in terms of pleasure, sociability, religion or history, Americans are uniquely mesmerized by its scientific aspect.

We are followers, Pollan said, of "nutritionism."

"It is an ideology, a way of organizing experience," he said. "Like other 'isms' it rests on a simple set of assumptions, though we don't realize it." The connection between food, science, and health is "a real linkage," he said, "but it has overwhelmed all of the other linkages in our culture."

Only in America, Pollan said, do people care more about food components - cholesterol, saturated fat, omega 3 oils, fiber and so on - than the foods themselves. And only in America can a low-fat craze grip the country, as it did from 1977 until 2002, to be displaced within a few months by a low-carb craze.

The problem with nutritionism, Pollan said, is that it gives processed foods a huge advantage over whole foods. "A banana or potato cannot significantly change its structure. But any processed food can be changed overnight to correspond with food fads. You can even rejigger bread along Atkins lines." So the "loudest foods in the market" he said, are processed foods, touting their nutritional virtues via a $42 billion marketing industry, while "these poor whole foods just sit there silently."

Thus, the irony: Americans are "a people obsessed with eating healthily, yet they are nonetheless very unhealthy."

Nutrition science has value, Pollan said, but unbridled "nutritionism," pushed by processed food marketers has simply left people confused. In an attempt to simplify food, he came up with his seven-word, three-sentence manifesto, though he concedes that each sentence needs amplification:

Eat food. The key term here, of course, is "food." We need to make hard distinctions between real food and "food-like products," Pollan said. Some guidelines:

* Don't eat food with more than five ingredients, or with ingredients you can't pronounce, or that contain high-fructose corn syrup (which serves as a 'marker' indicating that the food is highly processed).
* Eat only food that you have cooked, or could cook.
* Eat only food that your great, great grandmother would recognize as food.

Not too much. The chief harm of nutritionism, Pollan said, is that processed food companies seize on "good nutrients" and "push us to eat more of them." The result is a tendency for Americans to eat more generally, which is one reason why we are consuming 300 calories more daily than in 1985. In the mass of verbiage surrounding food in America, plain overeating is "the elephant in the room." Pollan's advice to reverse the trend:

* Don't eat alone.
* Don't eat in front of the TV.
* Don't eat seconds.
* Perhaps most importantly, pay more and eat less. "I believe that the better quality food you eat, the less you need to feel satisfied."

Mostly plants. "It's not that meat will kill you," he said. "I eat meat. Small amounts of meat have much to recommend them in terms of vitamins, minerals and taste. Most traditional diets - whether Mediterranean, Asian, Indian or Mexican, use meat sparingly, as a flavoring. I think that's an important lesson."

"Michael brought a wonderful perspective to the conference," said Dr. Weil. "In my writing on nutrition, I have always tried to emphasize that the whole food is more than the sum of its parts, and the social and pleasurable aspects of eating matter a great deal." As with healthy living in general, he said, "It's all a matter of balance. Understanding nutritional science can be a great aid in living a healthy life, but we can learn much from cultures that emphasize the simple joy of eating real food."

By Brad Lemley
DrWeil.com News


~Everything in moderation
including moderation

  Alert Top

MarcusWelby MarcusWelby rating
Member since 6-Dec-07
120 posts, 1 feedbacks, 2 points
20-Jul-10, 06:54 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to MarcusWelby MarcusWelby profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
14. "RE: Sugar Substitutes: What's Their Real Value?"
In response to message #13
 
   I'm not a fan of "Dr. Weil" and looks like he didn't author that article.

Pray tell, what does that article have to do with "Sugar Substitutes: What's Their Real Value?" ?

  Alert Top

Tomcat69moderator Tomcat69 rating
Member since 27-Sep-04
9131 posts, 140 feedbacks, 278 points
21-Jul-10, 05:23 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to Tomcat69 Tomcat69 profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
15. "RE: Sugar Substitutes: What's Their Real Value?"
In response to message #14
 
>I'm not a fan of "Dr. Weil" and looks like he didn't author
>that article.

Dr. Welby, have you always been this quick?


>Pray tell, what does that article have to do with "Sugar
>Substitutes: What's Their Real Value?"

You don't see the connection between "Sugar Substitutes: What's Their Real Value?" and real food?


~Everything in moderation
including moderation

  Alert Top

MarcusWelby MarcusWelby rating
Member since 6-Dec-07
120 posts, 1 feedbacks, 2 points
21-Jul-10, 06:40 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to MarcusWelby MarcusWelby profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
16. "RE: Sugar Substitutes: What's Their Real Value?"
In response to message #15
 
  
>You don't see the connection between "Sugar Substitutes:
>What's Their Real Value?" and real food?

Nope. Please explain. For instance, Equal® is two amino acids, constituents of protein. Stevia is from a plant and has 300 times the sweetness of table sugar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevia

Please elaborate, and what do you define as "real food" ?

  Alert Top

Conferences | Forums | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

   reviews | join vip | metasearch | terms of use | privacy top | help | faq    ©2011 myRedBook S.A.