I got interestings facts and information about sugar artificial "sugar". People have to research and keep inform.
I am parafrasing Stephen Cherniski:
The BAD:.... "Recent research (March 2008) shows that sugar triggers overeating even in the absence of taste receptors. This suggests that the preference for high-calorie foods is based not only on the sweet taste, but biochemical signals derived from the caloric density of the food. Importantly, no such reaction was observed with sucralose.
So we stand at a crossroads because a few internet “health experts” are churning out reams of misinformation. Will we look for the facts or be swayed by folks with little regard for rigorous science? You may remember the dire warnings when the microwave oven was invented. Email didn’t exist then, but there were petitions being passed around and signs on health food stores. People were literally making stuff up (like the “radiation” would affect your thyroid) and others were repeating it in a spiral of deceit and confusion that is STILL reverberating around health circles even today. That’s 35 years of insufferable nonsense.
My point is this: People make things up all the time. People post lies on the internet and others forward them. And the more you see a piece of information, the more credibility it has… even if it is a blatant lie.
How many times have you heard this:
If you water your house plants with microwaved water, they will die.
The truth: This is an urban legend; a complete fabrication. I have conducted experiments with large numbers of pea plants watered with microwaved water or spring water. They grew to the same height and bore equal numbers of peas.
I often criticize the alternative health “movement” for lapses of scientific integrity. I promote critical thinking as a way to weed out fraud, and start every scientific/ medical presentation with a slide that reads:
Science cannot prevent people from lying, But it must endeavor to prevent lies from being taken as truth.
So when a handful of self-appointed health “experts” fill the internet with misinformation, I have to oppose that with the facts. I started with an essay entitled Poison in the Well (included here), in which I observed that the increasing level of misinformation threatens to render the internet useless as a source of knowledge. Somehow, we as a society have to develop critical thinking skills, chief among them being the willingness to evaluate the veracity of statements before forwarding them to one’s entire mailing list.
In this case, a quick investigation would reveal that the “Sucralose Toxicity Information Center” is really only one guy with no formal training in the biological sciences. A rigorous investigation would show that Joseph Mercola is using unscientific reasoning in his ongoing diatribe against everything “artificial.” Essentially, every other rant against sucralose parrots the twisted and tortured “logic” of these two sites. Citizens for Health started a petition to the FDA to ban sucralose. This was a travesty of science, completely unworthy of that fine organization, but that only proves that even intelligent, well-meaning people can get caught in the flood of “sky-is-falling” email.
The UGLY: "Remember the Y2K “disaster?” Which scenario got more press and attention; the experts who predicted a short interruption in a few systems, or the people who claimed that civilization was about to collapse? It may be human nature to pay more attention to disaster claims (as a survival mechanism) but a knee-jerk
response to every shriek from uninformed naysayers is only going to cause more confusion and error.
IMPORTANT NOTE: Please remember that if someone reads this text and my Poison in the Well essay, and still objects to the use of Sucralose, there are two solutions: they can use Xperia (containing stevia, apple and grape concentrates, or Vitality capsules which of course contain no sweetener.
2008 UPDATE The latest round of nonsense concerning sucralose includes claims that it is a “chlorinated hydrocarbon.” FACT: The term “chlorinated hydrocarbon” can be used to refer to ANY of the thousands of compounds containing chlorine, carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. Thus technically speaking, sucralose is a chlorinated hydrocarbon. But so is your blood. You simply cannot make blanket statements about enormous numbers of chemical compounds. Anti-sucralose crusaders want you to think that all chlorinated hydrocarbons are the same, when in fact some are inert (sucralose) and some will kill you. To suggest that sucralose is the same as a chlorinated pesticide is like saying that eating eggs is the same as drinking battery acid because both contain the element sulfur
The GOOD: "To verify the safety of sucralose, the manufacturer, the EPA, FDA and nine other international agencies including the World Health Organization, used the most sensitive and comprehensive testing imaginable. The unanimous finding was that only about 2% of ingested sucralose is absorbed, and this minute amount is quickly and easily metabolized by the liver and kidneys to toxicologically insignificant compounds that are excreted through the urine and intestinal tract. As a result, every nation that has studied sucralose has approved it without caution, warnings or limitations. So the naysayers are facing an avalanche of public support for sucralose. Ultimately, they will just quietly go away, but I have no idea how long that will take. Many people still think microwave ovens cause brain tumors.
NOTE: Clorine is the 19th most abundant element on the planet. Scientists have found more than 3,000 naturally-occurring chlorine compounds in plants (many of which we eat). Chlorine is essential to human life and is found in significant quantities in the blood. Your stomach uses large amounts of chlorine to create the hydrochloric acid that helps digest your food.
Anti-sucralose crusaders lament that Sucralose is a chloronated sugar, forgetting that table salt is chloronated sodium. In fact, a teaspoon of salt added to a pot of soup contains about 3,000 mg of chlorine. Compare that to a one-ounce serving
of AgelessXtra which contains 25 mg of Sucralose, the chlorine content of which is less than 3 mg, and even this 3 mg is essentially non-absorbable.
Onward! ..."
Stephen Cherniske
References i Reiser S, Szepesi B. SCOGS report on the health aspects of sucrose consumption. Am J Clin Nutr. 1978 Jan;31(1):9-11.
ii USDA figures reported at http://www.medicinenet.com
iii Dills WL. Protein fructosylation: Fructose and the Maillard reaction. Am J Clin Nutr 1993; 58(suppl):779S-787S.
