As far as I'm concerned, Splenda (aka Sucralose) is the only "artificial" sweetener that is worth anything. It is sweeter than saccharin and aspartame, both of which are linked to cancer.
It is made from sugar and his considerably more healthy (rather to say -- less carcinogenic)
As far as I'm concerned, Splenda (aka Sucralose) is the only "artificial" sweetener that is worth anything. It is sweeter than saccharin and aspartame, both of which are linked to cancer.
It is made from sugar and his considerably more healthy (rather to say -- less carcinogenic)
Much clinical testing suggests that the only way splenda is less carcinogenic than saccharin and aspartame is that is hasn't been around long enough for people to find out about it. Google <splenda dangerous> or something like that. It seems splenda was shown conclusively to be carcinogenic in lab rats (as Aspartame and Saccharin were before they were approved by the FDA many years ago). They still get approved on the basis that there are significant differences between rat and human responses. The catch: Human testing for carcinogenity is not even required!
As far as taste goes, they all taste pretty disgusting to me; Maybe if you get used to them...
(By the way "made from sugar" is pretty much double-speak--just for advertising. doesn't really have much bearing on the chemical characteristics. In fact, chemically, splenda is closer to certain pesticides than sucrose-not that this necessarily means much either)
No, fructose is actually more sweet ounce for ounce, hence, the food industry replaces sucrose with HFCS(high fructose corn syrup) and saves money, getting the same sweetness.
Fructose has the same caloric content of sucrose ounce for ounce, but since it takes less to achieve the same sweetness level less is used and the product it is used in may be lower in calories.
a little fiction and fact from rickag's almanac
Oops! I got the fructose, sucrose sweetness ratio backwards. But, otherwise they are the smae. Fructose requires one less step to digest though.
It is much cheaper, as e1618978, and for those reasons.
This is good, I was always uncomfortable with Apple and Pepsi together, Coke is to Pepsi what Mac is to Windows. Everything Pepsi does (with the exception of Mountain Dew) is a ripoff of Coke. And Coke doesn't need Britney Spears to campaign for them *yuck*
I always thought it was the opposite that Pepsi is to Mac that Coca Cola is to WIndows.
But that's my opinion that Pepsi is 2nd best but better than Coca Cola in my opinion.
Oh my GOD you guys think too much. You could drop your Big Mac while you're driving and get in an accident and die tomorrow. You're going to die of something. So I'm going to stick with my one Coke Zero a day and enjoy it.
I always thought it was the opposite that Pepsi is to Mac that Coca Cola is to WIndows.
It is like that to be an analogy in which this is distinguished I, that, it thinks. Somehow the Pepsi and the Mac the unit could do it at Coca Cola and at the window, which are within only still something, the product are compared, but are it nevertheless a Shedding of the blood, the line of the products of the identical water are identical. This analogy is many and it, I the fact is understood that it positively means.
It is like that to be an analogy in which this is distinguished I, that, it thinks. Somehow the Pepsi and the Mac the unit could do it at Coca Cola and at the window, which are within only still something, the product are compared, but are it nevertheless a Shedding of the blood, the line of the products of the identical water are identical. This analogy is many and it, I the fact is understood that it positively means.
I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but could you run that by me again?
Really, he is full and it is understood. 1 thing, that is, only does not hit the two and is its understanding, that understands that the necessity, that does not understand is understood.
(By the way "made from sugar" is pretty much double-speak--just for advertising. doesn't really have much bearing on the chemical characteristics. In fact, chemically, splenda is closer to certain pesticides than sucrose-not that this necessarily means much either)
I was talking to a good friend who is a chemist, and he said that Splenda, actually is made from sugar, but just reduced to a zero calorie alcohol form.
Fructose is real sugar. There are hundreds of real sugars. Fructose has less calories than sucrose, but it is also less sweet, ounce for ounce.
I guess I need to be more careful about my terms, what I was referring to was fructose vs pure cane sugar. I see every one is commenting on the sweetness of various sweetners, but for you experts is my understanding about the absorption of fructose vs sucrose accurate? Seems to have worked for me...
I guess I need to be more careful about my terms, what I was referring to was fructose vs pure cane sugar. I see every one is commenting on the sweetness of various sweetners, but for you experts is my understanding about the absorption of fructose vs sucrose accurate? Seems to have worked for me...
Quote:
Originally posted by blue2kdave
Corn sweetener is fructose, as opposed to real sugar that is sucrose. Sucrose can be absorbed by every cell in your body, where as fructose can only be absorbed by the liver. And the liver struggles with it, clogging up the system and actually making you more hungry. If you look at the history, the soda companies switched to corns syrup in the 70's due to the Cuban embargo (sugar), and the fact that it become apparent that corn wasn't that good for you and farmers needed another way to sell their crop.
Not true - All sugars are eventually converted to glucose before they are absorbed, so there is no way that sucrose can make it to "every cell in your body" (only the lining of your stomach and intestine will ever see sucrose). I think that the main difference between fructose and sucrose is that fructose is absorbed in the stomach, while sucrose has to wait to be broken down (into glucose and fructose) in the intestine before it can be absorbed. Both fructose and sucrose cause tooth decay.
There is a diet based on the early absorbtion of fructose, called the "specific carbohydrate diet" - which is used to treat intestinal problems caused by sugar fed bacteria.
I was talking to a good friend who is a chemist, and he said that Splenda, actually is made from sugar, but just reduced to a zero calorie alcohol form.
Yes, it is made from real sugar that is chlorinated (read all about it on wikipedia.org). The point is that this fact means nothing safety-wise or nutritionally wise--You could chemically manufacture all kinds of dangerous things out of all kinds of safe household things. hence, the fact that it's "made from sugar" really has no bearing in any sphere of discussion.
Not true - All sugars are eventually converted to glucose before they are absorbed, so there is no way that sucrose can make it to "every cell in your body" (only the lining of your stomach and intestine will ever see sucrose). I think that the main difference between fructose and sucrose is that fructose is absorbed in the stomach, while sucrose has to wait to be broken down (into glucose and fructose) in the intestine before it can be absorbed. Both fructose and sucrose cause tooth decay.
There is a diet based on the early absorbtion of fructose, called the "specific carbohydrate diet" - which is used to treat intestinal problems caused by sugar fed bacteria.
Comments
It is made from sugar and his considerably more healthy (rather to say -- less carcinogenic)
Originally posted by icfireball
As far as I'm concerned, Splenda (aka Sucralose) is the only "artificial" sweetener that is worth anything. It is sweeter than saccharin and aspartame, both of which are linked to cancer.
It is made from sugar and his considerably more healthy (rather to say -- less carcinogenic)
Much clinical testing suggests that the only way splenda is less carcinogenic than saccharin and aspartame is that is hasn't been around long enough for people to find out about it. Google <splenda dangerous> or something like that. It seems splenda was shown conclusively to be carcinogenic in lab rats (as Aspartame and Saccharin were before they were approved by the FDA many years ago). They still get approved on the basis that there are significant differences between rat and human responses. The catch: Human testing for carcinogenity is not even required!
As far as taste goes, they all taste pretty disgusting to me; Maybe if you get used to them...
(By the way "made from sugar" is pretty much double-speak--just for advertising. doesn't really have much bearing on the chemical characteristics. In fact, chemically, splenda is closer to certain pesticides than sucrose-not that this necessarily means much either)
Originally posted by rickag
Yes fructose is real sugar.
No, fructose is actually more sweet ounce for ounce, hence, the food industry replaces sucrose with HFCS(high fructose corn syrup) and saves money, getting the same sweetness.
Fructose has the same caloric content of sucrose ounce for ounce, but since it takes less to achieve the same sweetness level less is used and the product it is used in may be lower in calories.
a little fiction and fact from rickag's almanac
Oops! I got the fructose, sucrose sweetness ratio backwards. But, otherwise they are the smae. Fructose requires one less step to digest though.
It is much cheaper, as e1618978, and for those reasons.
Originally posted by Johnny Mozzarella
I gave up drinking carbonated beverages about 20 years ago.
I was surprised to learn recently that one of my favorite bottled waters, DASANI, is bottled by Coke.
Dasani...hmmm. I don't know exactly how they market the stuff in the US but THIS article may be of interest to you.
In the UK the consumer expects a "pure bottled water" to be sourced from a spring. Dasani certainly was not.
OT. Anyhow...
Originally posted by DeaPeaJay
This is good, I was always uncomfortable with Apple and Pepsi together, Coke is to Pepsi what Mac is to Windows. Everything Pepsi does (with the exception of Mountain Dew) is a ripoff of Coke. And Coke doesn't need Britney Spears to campaign for them *yuck*
I always thought it was the opposite that Pepsi is to Mac that Coca Cola is to WIndows.
But that's my opinion that Pepsi is 2nd best but better than Coca Cola in my opinion.
Originally posted by Mitch1984
I always thought it was the opposite that Pepsi is to Mac that Coca Cola is to WIndows.
It is like that to be an analogy in which this is distinguished I, that, it thinks. Somehow the Pepsi and the Mac the unit could do it at Coca Cola and at the window, which are within only still something, the product are compared, but are it nevertheless a Shedding of the blood, the line of the products of the identical water are identical. This analogy is many and it, I the fact is understood that it positively means.
Originally posted by CharlesS
It is like that to be an analogy in which this is distinguished I, that, it thinks. Somehow the Pepsi and the Mac the unit could do it at Coca Cola and at the window, which are within only still something, the product are compared, but are it nevertheless a Shedding of the blood, the line of the products of the identical water are identical. This analogy is many and it, I the fact is understood that it positively means.
I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but could you run that by me again?
Originally posted by DeaPeaJay
I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but could you run that by me again?
And you the run by I in rudeness waking, such thoughts identical to water.
Originally posted by Mitch1984
I always thought it was the opposite that Pepsi is to Mac that Coca Cola is to WIndows.
But that's my opinion that Pepsi is 2nd best but better than Coca Cola in my opinion.
Pepsi = Republican
Coke = Democrat
Originally posted by shetline
And you the run by I in rudeness waking, such thoughts identical to water.
huh? Nothing is making sense
Originally posted by MiMac
Dasani...hmmm. I don't know exactly how they market the stuff in the US but THIS article may be of interest to you.
In the UK the consumer expects a "pure bottled water" to be sourced from a spring. Dasani certainly was not.
OT. Anyhow...
In the US, the consumer expects "Spring Water" to be sourced from a spring
That, and, IMO, Dasani is better than about 90% of spring water.
Originally posted by icfireball
What exactly is the difference between Coke Zero and Diet Coke?
I know Coke C2 is like a in-between-diet-and-regular-coke.
Coke Zero is supposedly being marketed towards men, who have a stigma towards "diet" drinks.
Originally posted by DeaPeaJay
huh? Nothing is making sense
Really, he is full and it is understood. 1 thing, that is, only does not hit the two and is its understanding, that understands that the necessity, that does not understand is understood.
Originally posted by meelash
(By the way "made from sugar" is pretty much double-speak--just for advertising. doesn't really have much bearing on the chemical characteristics. In fact, chemically, splenda is closer to certain pesticides than sucrose-not that this necessarily means much either)
I was talking to a good friend who is a chemist, and he said that Splenda, actually is made from sugar, but just reduced to a zero calorie alcohol form.
seriously folks drinking water is cheaper and way better for you, its the part of the original OS that we all share!
Rod
Originally posted by melgross
Fructose is real sugar. There are hundreds of real sugars. Fructose has less calories than sucrose, but it is also less sweet, ounce for ounce.
I guess I need to be more careful about my terms, what I was referring to was fructose vs pure cane sugar. I see every one is commenting on the sweetness of various sweetners, but for you experts is my understanding about the absorption of fructose vs sucrose accurate? Seems to have worked for me...
Originally posted by blue2kdave
I guess I need to be more careful about my terms, what I was referring to was fructose vs pure cane sugar. I see every one is commenting on the sweetness of various sweetners, but for you experts is my understanding about the absorption of fructose vs sucrose accurate? Seems to have worked for me...
Originally posted by blue2kdave
Corn sweetener is fructose, as opposed to real sugar that is sucrose. Sucrose can be absorbed by every cell in your body, where as fructose can only be absorbed by the liver. And the liver struggles with it, clogging up the system and actually making you more hungry. If you look at the history, the soda companies switched to corns syrup in the 70's due to the Cuban embargo (sugar), and the fact that it become apparent that corn wasn't that good for you and farmers needed another way to sell their crop.
Not true - All sugars are eventually converted to glucose before they are absorbed, so there is no way that sucrose can make it to "every cell in your body" (only the lining of your stomach and intestine will ever see sucrose). I think that the main difference between fructose and sucrose is that fructose is absorbed in the stomach, while sucrose has to wait to be broken down (into glucose and fructose) in the intestine before it can be absorbed. Both fructose and sucrose cause tooth decay.
There is a diet based on the early absorbtion of fructose, called the "specific carbohydrate diet" - which is used to treat intestinal problems caused by sugar fed bacteria.
Originally posted by icfireball
I was talking to a good friend who is a chemist, and he said that Splenda, actually is made from sugar, but just reduced to a zero calorie alcohol form.
Yes, it is made from real sugar that is chlorinated (read all about it on wikipedia.org). The point is that this fact means nothing safety-wise or nutritionally wise--You could chemically manufacture all kinds of dangerous things out of all kinds of safe household things. hence, the fact that it's "made from sugar" really has no bearing in any sphere of discussion.
Originally posted by e1618978
Not true - All sugars are eventually converted to glucose before they are absorbed, so there is no way that sucrose can make it to "every cell in your body" (only the lining of your stomach and intestine will ever see sucrose). I think that the main difference between fructose and sucrose is that fructose is absorbed in the stomach, while sucrose has to wait to be broken down (into glucose and fructose) in the intestine before it can be absorbed. Both fructose and sucrose cause tooth decay.
There is a diet based on the early absorbtion of fructose, called the "specific carbohydrate diet" - which is used to treat intestinal problems caused by sugar fed bacteria.
That's correct. A good explanation.