day 53: little victories (see comments for splenda vs. sugar)
Is Splenda the devil? For a long time I thought it was and refused to debase my tea with that wretched substance. I figured sugar was more “natural” for some reason and decided against using sugar substitutes. Recently, as I gear up for Core, I noticed that I spend like 7 to 14+ points a week on sugar in my tea - which is a lot! So I have switched so Splenda. I still want to do more research. I hear aspartame (err however it is spelled) has some negative research around it but I am unsure about Splenda. Reader, if you know please share the knowledge.
Completely separate note…
I went to the gym yesterday despite being in a cranky mood (fucking pigeons). When I got home I prepared a nice healthy lunch. I sat down to eat it when suddenly I realized I wasn’t actually hungry. This epiphany evoked both shock and awe for those voices inside my head who were determined to eat for eating’s sake. Hours went by and my lunch sat there in the fridge, waiting to be eaten. Eventually I got up and went for a walk to the pharmacy (to pick up the above Splenda and some other stuff) and when I got home I noticed I was actually hungry. This was like 5 hours later. And so I ate. And it was good.
January 7, 2008 at 2:37 am
This worries me:
“The inventors of Splenda admit around fifteen percent (15%) of sucralose is absorbed by the body, but they cannot guarantee us (out of this fifteen percent) what amount of chlorine stays in the body and what percent flushes out.”
http://www.splendaexposed.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splenda#Safety
January 7, 2008 at 2:43 am
The following is from the aforementioned website…
“The two safest choices of sweeteners to date are saccharin and stevia. Yes, saccharin! Saccharin is actually similar to stevia in its origin. It originally came from a plant imported from China, and in its original form, is a complex sugar extract from the plant itself. Stevia is extracted from a plant grown in South America, and is also a complex sugar extract.
According to FDA documents, saccharin has never caused cancer. Years ago, saccharin was sold in tiny pin-sized pellets, and merely two or three were enough to add sweetness to coffee or iced tea. This is what I consider a natural sucrose (sugar) substitute!”
See also:
http://www.sweetnlow.com/faqs.html
January 15, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Also, my mom has MS and her neurologist (brain doc) tells her to avoid aspartame. I figure if its bad enough for her to avoid, I will do the same. Aspartame, like Splenda, mysteriously deposits some of itself somewhere in your system. I think I am going to vote Sweet N’ Low sweetner-wise, and I encourage you to read up on sugar substitutes if you use them.
January 21, 2008 at 3:21 am
I think all of the sugar substitutes are poison. Aspertame turns into formaldehyde. I believe that saccharin has caused cancer. I have heard stevia is from a plant and is natural, but I don’t love it. Agave nectar is natural and good, but it has just as many calories as sugar, but at least its natural and not refined. Have you tried honey? It has many beneficial properties. Oh, and if any of you think the FDA and/or government gives a shit whether you live or die, you would be quite mistaken.
January 21, 2008 at 4:06 am
I sure have tried honey! It is quite nice in tea. Thanks for your comment - I am wary of sugar substitutes and disagree with how WW indirectly promotes them.
March 9, 2008 at 4:31 am
Update: Sweet N Low has recently been found to be as shitty as the rest of sugar substitutes. Forseriously, just use sugar.