Re: Soy protein + sucralose

[Guest guest]

Yes, but are you aware of the number of sucralose supporters on this

list? Check the archives. (I'm not particularly one of them - I

don't think it has " no aftertaste " as touted.) Mercola doesn't like

soy either.

And I'm afraid some of the statements about sucralose draw on

hysteria rather than science. Some (not all) are of the " OH MY GOSH -

THERE'S CHLORINE IN IT! " variety, as though they added bleach. I'm

a chemist. The element chlorine is present in the compound, and if

it gets split out it is in the body as chloride - elemental chlorine

is a gas, and it is not going to be converted into the gas. There is

WAY more chloride in your body already than you're going to add via

sucralose. I'm not exactly defending sucralose, but some of the

statements about it are too hysterical to be considered. And I find

it hard to take entirely seriously an argument that tries to combine

science with the hysterical approach - they should stick to the

science. Why do they want to drag in the rubbish and dilute what

might be a valid point? Is there another agenda here as well?

Is aspartame any better? Many governmental bodies (not just in the

US) have refused to endorse stevia. (I don't like it either - tastes

lousy.) I use very little artificial sweetener, and refuse to get

excited about the amount I might consume in one drink a day.

Choose your poison - and the dose.

Iris

>

> > Their website says it will soon be available in a sucralose

> > sweetened version, which I'll try when it is available,

> > particularly to knock the calorie count down from what

> > I'm currently doing.

>

> Have you ever seen Dr Mercola's page on Sucralose?

> http://www.mercola.com/2000/dec/3/sucralose_dangers.htm

>

> Or Mark Gold's Sucralose page?

> http://www.holisticmed.com/splenda/

[Guest guest]

> Yes, but are you aware of the number of sucralose supporters

> on this list?

I don't think nutritional science is democratic ;-)

> Mercola doesn't like soy either.

From my soy links:

http://www.mercola.com/article/soy/

http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz/

http://www.nexusmagazine.com/soydangers.html

Soy does seem to be a very mixed substance. I generally avoid it.

> And I'm afraid some of the statements about sucralose draw on

> hysteria rather than science.

Could be. The main complaint seems to be that there isn't much

science about sucralose around at all. By all accounts, this is not

a well-tested compound.

> Is aspartame any better? [...]

Mercola on Aspartame:

http://www.mercola.com/article/aspartame/

Mark Gold on Aspartame:

http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/

Summary - not accoring to these two.

> Many governmental bodies (not just in the US) have refused

> to endorse stevia.

I tend to side with http://www.stevia.net/safety.htm on that one.

Conspiracy theorists seem to have a field day with the idea that

one of the few decent non-caloric sweetners is widely banned

(except in Japan) - while all manner of patented chemicals with

serious toxicity concerns are approved for such use.

> I use very little artificial sweetener, and refuse to get

> excited about the amount I might consume in one drink a day.

Fair enough. FWIW, I don't seem to consume much sugar or sweetners.

With fewer calories, concentrated sugar seems to go to my head

faster these days. Consequently I tend to avoid it. Even melon

or grapes in quantity seems to be too much sugar too quickly.