.jpg)
.jpeg)
This is a bit of personal post for me- since I'm a former Splenda whore. And when I say it- I MEAN it! I was a "6 Splenda packets" in my daily Venti Americano from Starbucks, an avid Crystal Light addict, a baker who used Splenda- splenda in my oatmeal, splenda in my protein powder, you name it, I put Splenda in it. And why not? Initially, Splenda was the revolution when it came to artificial sweeteners. Everyone was using it, cooking with it, sweetening away with it, all the while with no regard for the havoc it was wrecking on our taste buds, our digestion, and ultimately, our waistlines.
“Low–sugar” or "sugar free" seems to be the successor to the “low–carb” craze, even though they are essentially the same thing. According to the New York Times, by the end of this summer 11% of the food items on supermarket shelves will be labeled “reduced sugar”. Sales in granulated sugar have dropped four percent in the past six months. The driving force behind this trend seems to be.... * drum-roll*....Splenda.
Products featuring Splenda are perceived as “natural” because even the FDA’s press release about sucralose parrots the claim that “it is made from sugar."
The FDA has no definition for “natural,” so please bear with me for a biochemistry moment: Splenda is the trade name for sucralose, a synthetic compound stumbled upon in 1976 by scientists in Britain seeking a new pesticide formulation. It is true that the Splenda molecule is comprised of sucrose (sugar) — except that three of the hydroxyl groups in the molecule have been replaced by three chlorine atoms. (that's as scientific as I'll get I swear....)
While some industry experts claim the molecule is similar to table salt or sugar, other independent researchers say it has more in common with pesticides....um yeah, that's right, I said pesticides. That’s because the bonds holding the carbon and chlorine atoms together are more characteristic of a chlorocarbon than a salt — and most pesticides are chlorocarbons. There is a defense which states that just because something contains chlorine doesn’t guarantee that it’s toxic. And that is also true, but you and your family may prefer not to serve as test subjects for the latest market trend artificial sweetener experiment.
Once it gets to the gut, sucralose goes largely unrecognized in the body as food — that’s why it has no calories. The majority of people don’t absorb a significant amount of Splenda in their small intestine — about 15% by some accounts. The irony is that your body tries to clear unrecognizable substances by digesting them, so it’s not unlikely that the healthier your gastrointestinal system is, the more you’ll absorb the chlorinated molecules of Splenda.
So, is Splenda safe? The truth is we just don’t know yet. There are no long-term studies of the side effects of Splenda in humans pertinent to health. The manufacturer’s own short-term studies showed that very high doses of sucralose (far beyond what would be expected in an ordinary diet) caused shrunken thymus glands, enlarged livers, and kidney disorders in rodents. (A more recent study also shows that Splenda significantly decreases beneficial gut flora.) But in this case, the FDA decided that because these studies weren’t based on human test animals, they were not conclusive....ahhh the FDA. :) Of course, rats had been chosen for the testing specifically because they metabolize sucralose more like humans than any other animal used for testing....so, in a sense the FDA has tried to have it both ways — they accepted the manufacturer’s studies on rats because the manufacturer had shown that rats and humans metabolize the sweetener in similar ways, but shrugged off the safety concerns on the grounds that rats and humans are different. Hmmm.....
I get concerned about this for a few reasons; one being that in the eleven years after Splenda was put on the market, no independent studies of sucralose lasting more than six months have been done in humans. My second concern is that none of the trials that were done were very large — the largest was 128 people studied for three months. Well, what happens when you've used sucralose for a year? Or two years? Or ten? How about the frequency of use? Let's use me for example, or any other competitor or avid dieter for that matter- we've been putting Splenda in EVERYTHING! And everything (or almost everything) that's labeled "diet" on the market today has sucralose IN IT! What about that?
Then there’s a sidenote; Splenda, as a product, consists of more than just sucralose—it’s made with dextrose, and sometimes also with maltodextrin, neither of which were included in the original studies and trials of sucralose. So the reality is that we are the guinea pigs for Splenda.
Evidence that there are side effects of Splenda is accumulating little by little. Sucralose has been implicated as a possible migraine trigger, for example. Self-reported adverse reactions to Splenda or sucralose collected by the Sucralose Toxicity Information Center include skin rashes/flushing, panic-like agitation, dizziness and numbness, diarrhea, swelling, muscle aches, headaches, intestinal cramping, bladder issues, and stomach pain, and a hoard of digestive issues including chronic gas. Lovely huh?
If this sounds familiar, it should: we went down the same path with aspartame, the main ingredient in Equal and NutraSweet. Almost all of the independent research into aspartame found dangerous side effects in rodents. The FDA chose not to take these findings into account when it approved aspartame for public use. Over the course of 15 years, those same side effects increasingly appeared in humans.
One thing is certain: some of the chemicals that comprise artificial sweeteners are known hazards — the degree to which you experience side effects just depends on your individual biochemistry. Manufacturers are banking on the fact that our bodies won’t absorb very much of these compounds at any one time. And many of us don’t. But what happens when we are ingesting a combination of artificial sweeteners like Splenda dozens of times a week through many different “low–sugar” or “sugar–free” products? (ME ME ME ME!! I've done this!)
Well for starters, artificial sweeteners are CHEMICALS, not FOOD and therefore our bodies do not recognize them as food, nor do they know how to process them. Fake sugars do not satisfy your bodies search for nourishment in any way shape or form. Artificial sweeteners also tend to increase the sweetness of the palette, which means that our taste-buds adjust to the increase in sweetness in our foods. Since Splenda is 200x more sweet then sugar and most of us dump in our food but the bagful, this means we're dramatically increasing our bodies sensitivity to sweetness, rather then allowing our taste-buds to adjust to a less sweet diet of whole, natural foods- sans sugar and sans artificial sweeteners.
So what do I recommend? Well- don't take my word for it- look to diabetics for the answer! For many years, diabetics have used products sweetened with polyalcohol sugars like sorbitol, xylitol, malitol, and mannitol. These are natural sweeteners that do not trigger an insulin reaction. (Xylitol can be derived from birch tree pulp.) They have half the calories of sugar and are not digested by the small intestine.
While most polyalcohol sugars have no side effects, sorbitol is a natural laxative and can cause diarrhea, irritable bowel syndrome, bloating and flatulence.
For this reason, I recommend the herb stevia (Stevia rebaudiana) over sorbitol as a natural sweetener. Known in South America as the “sweet herb,” stevia has been used for over 400 years without ill effect. Stevia has been enormously popular in Japan, where it has been in use for more than 20 years, now rivaling Equal and Sweet’N Low. It’s 200–300 times sweeter than sugar, so just a small portion of stevia will sweeten even a strong cup of tea.
We’ve known about stevia in the US since 1918, but pressure from the sugar import trade blocked its use as a commodity. Today stevia is slowly gaining steam as a sugar substitute, despite similar hurdles. The FDA has approved its use as a food supplement, but not as a food additive due to a lack of studies. Stevia can be used for anything you might use sugar in, including baking. It is naturally low in carbohydrates. You can buy stevia at most health food stores and over the web.
More importantly, you can do a lot to support your body in other ways to reduce your dependency on sugar and sugar substitutes — something I encourage every woman to do. Once your body returns to its natural state of balance, you may find that you can toss out those artificial sweeteners and put sugar in its proper place: where you have control over it and not vice versa.
Artificial sweeteners are chemicals, not food! They have no calories because they don’t nourish your body in anyway — they’re toxins your body has to clear, or, depending on how well you detoxify, store. Be knowledgeable about sweeteners, and don't get duped into the "sugar free" or "carb free" or "calorie free" craze that seems to be sweeping the nation. Rather focus on reducing the sweetness of your palette, when dieting or prepping for a show use Stevia, and when not dieting enjoy the inclusion of low glycemic natural sugars like honey and agave nectar in your diet!
I can tell you this- since dropping Splenda in my own diet, I am less bloated, less gasy and suffer less G.I discomfort. I also have a slimmer waist, a less sensitive palette to sweetness, and less carb and sugar cravings in general. Stevia is my pre contest buddy and offseason I'm a fan of raw organic honey when I need some additional sweetness. So I can personally say that my digestive system AND my waistline are much happier now that Splenda has left my life!
