Lexica says: More: As of 2006, only six human trials have been published on Splenda. Of these six trials, only two of the trials were completed and published before the FDA approved sucralose for human consumption, and the two published trials had a grand total of 36 total human subjects. You know, this is a confusing topic. You start researching these things and it ends up with one company with big giants in the background competing and downplaying another company with big giant backers in the background. If you read this article to the end, it appears to be promoting another substance called "stevia", which leads me to Wiki where it suggest that Coke and Pepsi are behind the product which uses this element. Ultimately we're better off not consuming sugar or sugar substitute which is also confusing in itself. http://www.steviainfo.com/?page=news_detail&id=0 Okay, I'm going to check out Truvia now. Damn corporations!. I was hooked on Splenda but now I'm suspicious, gee, thanks for the clip. Stevia (pronounced STEH-vee-uh, btw) is a natural substance – it's an herb that grows naturally in Central and South America. Coke and Pepsi may well be investigating whether they can use stevia extract as a noncaloric sweetener, but that doesn't make stevia inherently suspect. There's a real scarcity of evidence that any artificial sweetener actually helps anybody lose weight, or even not gain weight, considering how much research you KNOW these companies are doing trying to prove it. It's quite possible the brain automatically compensates for the calories it expects to get associated with a sweet taste and doesn't by having you eat a few more calories elsewhere. Stevia is the best available, though I prefer liquid to powder. Have sent the clip off to a few fellow diabetics. Thanks Lexica. Important clip. |
View the Top Clips from May 5, 2009
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
|
|
|
|
New from the makers of Clipmarks: Amplify.com - Don't just share the news...Amplify it!
|
|