i read splenda is dangerous

http://naturalsociety.com/is-splenda-safe-examining-dangers-sugar-alternative/

I've read it too!  Very dangerous.  It's like eating bleach.   A lot of the protein shakes have it too. 

There's a few that don't use it but rather use stevia:

It's About Time

Jay Robb

Now Sports

Try stevia for sweetener it's natural and 0 calories.  Unfortunately, it doesn't taste as good. 

I'd be very careful about taking as gospel articles from a source with a clear agenda. This is from "Natural Society" which has a strong agenda against any man-made chemical.

There's no conclusive science to back this up, just like there's no conclusive science to back up the terrible fear of aspartame. I agree that in general natural is better, but I still wear man-made fabrics and drink/eat from man-made receptacles while typing away on my keyboard made of man-made materials.

 

And I'm NOT giving up my space heater that is man-made, so you people just back the hell away.

Warning to all:

Do not. I repeat DO NOT get between slimpickins5280 and her space heater. It will not go well for you!

Yes! And my blue fleece house coat from my fat days. It's like a big comfy blanket now.

No touching.

Scary stuff. But then, most anything is scary out in the blogosphere - it's the nature of the net. If one is so inclined, one can find scary blogs on most any food - beef, chicken, cheese, green vegetables (many green vegetables contain natural carcinogens as part of their defense against their natural pests - they just aren't a bother to us in the quantities that we normally consume.) The negative effects that this blog assigns to sucralose also apply to many other products, including good old natural sugar. There will always be a few who are sensitive or allergic to any given food, so there is nothing particularly profound here.

Stevia is the new kid on the block which means that there hasn't yet been time for the reported problems (which with all of these products are in very small numbers) to hit critical mass, but it will have its faults as well. It is marketed as being "natural" which unfortunately doesn't have a meaningful legal definition in the marketing world - anything can be marketed as "natural". Arsenic and hemlock are natural, but that doesn't make them something that you want to add to your coffee. Rest assured that when a new non-nutritive sweetener hits the market, they will dig up some dirt on Stevia as part of their promotions.

For more of a scare, take a look at

http://dhmo.org/

The best defense against all of this, including the as-yet unknown or under-reported problems is that scary word - moderation. Don't go overboard on any one product or food. Our bodies like variety (one of the reasons that we evolved/were created to be omnivores,) and tend to be tolerant of small amounts ofmany toxins (alcohol is a toxin, but we have a tolerance for it in small quantities.) By all means, use Stevia when you can, but if you note any of the side effects that are often noted for other sweeteners, then back off the quantities and use some of the others as well. I haven't noted any of these problems, but then I don't depend upon any one product, nor do I use any of them in any great quantity. I use stevia, sucralose, aspartame, sugar alcohols, real sugar, honey, agave, etc. in different things as appropriate/available/convenient. That way, if any of these shows a genuine hazard, in general or to me individually, it's not a big deal to drop it out of my diet.

I agree with Mom.  I take this with a huge grain of salt.  The only articles I see supporting this are from places like the natural science center or the like - places with a clear agenda.  There is a popular misconception that sucralose affects blood glucose levels that is not supported by scientific research.  IF you are hearing that, check the resources available from the American Diabetic Association on sucralose.

 

Sucralose is made by the selective chlorination of regular table sugar - sucralose.  Parts of the sugar molecule that allow it to be absorbed in the body are replaced with chlorine while the sugar alcohols are protected.  That way, the sweet portions are left intact, but aren't broken away from the rest of the molecule like normal sugar.  At least thats the way my biochem wonk friends explain it to me.  These are the days I really miss ruggie!

I lump the fears about sucralose along with the caveman diet BS about flour that you hear all the time.

I miss ruggie too.

Where is he? Does anyone know?