Artificial sweetener linked to weight gain
- Thread starter shellsy21
- Start date
Speaking for myself personally, I have used artificial sweetners (Splenda, mainly), and Aspertame (its in some sugar free yogurts, etc), and have had no problem losing over 30 pounds and getting to 8% body fat. I dont give much value to this article.
However, there is some validity in this statement within the article:
"One of the points" that this quote is emphasising is that persons (in general) are eating too much (calories IN), and activity is reduced (calories OUT).
Best regards,
Chillen
However, there is some validity in this statement within the article:
"One of the points" that this quote is emphasising is that persons (in general) are eating too much (calories IN), and activity is reduced (calories OUT).
Best regards,
Chillen
Last edited:
I like that! Comforting!!
I don't use them anymore because I lost the taste for something sweet however I've used splenda quite often with no issues/stall in progress/etc. I didn't read the article but there was some talk about these sweeteners triggering an insulin response in some people which can sometimes lead to fat storage, but there would be MANY other variables that one would have to consider before they flagged these sweeteners as the culprits.
What I got from the article is that artificial sweeteners may make you more hungry and therefore lead to weight gain.
From the article:
"In comparison to rats given yogurt sweetened with glucose, those that ate yogurt sweetened with saccharin went on to consume more calories and put on more weight and body fat."
More calories leading to putting on more weight and body fat is pretty intuitive isn’t it?
Also, from the article:
"The researchers said sweet foods may prompt the body to get ready to take in a lot of calories, but when sweetness in the form of artificial sweeteners is not followed by a large amount of calories, the body gets confused, which may lead to eating more or expending less energy than normal."
That being said, the "expending less energy" part makes sense to me too. I do know that things like diet soft drinks are not as good for a diet as many people think. I stopped consuming soft drinks (I may still have one once in a while) a little while back and definitely feel better. I don’t think the weight loss has drastically improved, but I feel better. Part of that too is the increased water intake (I’ve got to drink something).
From the article:
"In comparison to rats given yogurt sweetened with glucose, those that ate yogurt sweetened with saccharin went on to consume more calories and put on more weight and body fat."
More calories leading to putting on more weight and body fat is pretty intuitive isn’t it?
Also, from the article:
"The researchers said sweet foods may prompt the body to get ready to take in a lot of calories, but when sweetness in the form of artificial sweeteners is not followed by a large amount of calories, the body gets confused, which may lead to eating more or expending less energy than normal."
That being said, the "expending less energy" part makes sense to me too. I do know that things like diet soft drinks are not as good for a diet as many people think. I stopped consuming soft drinks (I may still have one once in a while) a little while back and definitely feel better. I don’t think the weight loss has drastically improved, but I feel better. Part of that too is the increased water intake (I’ve got to drink something).
I dont use saccharin products personally, but I have read information on this sweetner. However, I have read some information that Splenda has effected the blood sugar on some diabetics, but in general it seems to have no effect on blood sugar levels, as some other diabetics have taken Splenda with no ill effects to their blood sugar (even the box specifies its safe for diabetics, but this isnt "totally" true). I have such a grapple on my cravings I dont have them, and I really cant say for absolute certainty, using Splenda as an example, if this sweetner has effected my want to eat more. I'd be tussling with the aspects of normal biological feedback, psychological feedback, and other internal issues, rather than singling out the sweetner as being the culprit. There are alot of factors to consider that trigger the want to eat and/or cravings.
This article cannot come close to being deemed exhaustive on this topic. I quoted that portion of the article for a reason. People in general just flat eat too much and activity levels are low, and while this can be the main "contributing factor" in most persons, there can be other items in health that can make this same "contributing factor" (like being a diabetic, having thyroid complications, etc) even worse. Of course, eating over what you need is intuitive and very basic common sense to put on tissue weight (the calorie is almighty!). There needs to be more information/study on whether it actually effects energy expenditure.
For instance, I am very meticulous in my diet and corresponding deficits (I have wrote on this many times), and when losing the large portion of my weight, I was consuming Splenda/Aspertame, and the deficits tracked fairly close to my weight loss projections(when considering 3500c for an aproximate pound of tissue). I cant say for sure whether if I had removed Splenda/Aspertame from my diet during that time whether it would have been faster or slower weight loss given the information from the article.
What I can say is that is was adequate and steady fat loss even when consuming it. And, IMO a better choice among a bad choice set, and a better alternative, IMO, as compared to refined white sugar (one ought to read the information on refined white sugar as a comparison).
Best regards
Chillen
Last edited:
I skimmed over the 2 post -sorry, but What I got from this and the paper today was that our bodies normaly get ready to burn cals when they sense sweets, due to sweet having high cals - but then they realize -hey nothing to burn, and then dont trigger the proper way when a real high cal sweet comes.
I read that splenda was 99% sugar..... how could this not affect blood sugar levels???
Splenda is a bunch of bull****, though. They claim "no calorie sweetener" and you look at the ingredients and it's dextrose, maltodextrin (BOTH SUGARS) and succralose (which is a pesticide if I recall).
What they do is just make the serving size so that it's less than 1g of carb and then report no calories.... bah! That kind of stuff really makes me mad and it shouldn't be allowed. What if I diabetic didn't realize this?! ya know??!
I try to stay away from this stuff as much as I can. I think aspartame is even worse, if I recall correctly.
Splenda is a bunch of bull****, though. They claim "no calorie sweetener" and you look at the ingredients and it's dextrose, maltodextrin (BOTH SUGARS) and succralose (which is a pesticide if I recall).
What they do is just make the serving size so that it's less than 1g of carb and then report no calories.... bah! That kind of stuff really makes me mad and it shouldn't be allowed. What if I diabetic didn't realize this?! ya know??!
I try to stay away from this stuff as much as I can. I think aspartame is even worse, if I recall correctly.
The question to ask one's self is how many chemicals are we truly consuming in the foods we eat. When one looks at the growth period, processing, maintaining, and then shipment of foods (and subsequently attempts to educate one's self on this subject, it truly widen's the eye balls
)Splenda is sugar with a chlorine molecule attached (to put this simply). In general and with "most" persons, it passes through the body "unrecognized" as an energy source, and in most cases, has no calorie value. Though the chemical make up of Splenda has been around of many years, its just in recent years, it was packaged in a commercial product dubbed, Splenda. The jury is still out on whether it has any legit side effects, though you will find critics not to be in short supply.
To save writing space (because I do know alot about artificial sweetners), do a google on Splenda (and the others) to get educated on it. While you are at it, study refined white sugar. If you have "personal" complications with artificial sweetners, I think after you study refined white sugar, you will have a personal complication with it as well.
A lot of persons eat preservatives, pesticides, and other ingredients that they may deem undesirable, and don't even know it.
I have to tell on myself though. So here is a short story, in the hopes one can get something of value from it. I was gonna write a long response in this thread (Hey! I have a reputation to keep, he, he, just kidding). But, decided this should suffice:
For quite some time I purchased a box of frozen Talapia (fish) that came in packages of 98 calorie vaccumed serving sizes. I was in heaven. It was nearly the perfect serving size and fit within my dietary circumference perfectly. It looked so deliciously bright white and fresh; protein, natural, and health heaven--so I thought.
At the time and for several months (lol on me), I didnt bother to look at the ingredients because it "looked so fresh and natural". However, one day, one of the vaccumed packages was sitting on the counter ingredient side up (I was preparing one my favorite fish dishes, Grated Parmasen Talapia), and I skimmed over it not really reading it (I was taking things for granted), and two words caught my eye: Carbon Monoxide. I picked the package up thinking, what the heck?! Listed in the ingredients of the fish I had been consuming for several months was: Talapia and Carbon Monoxide.
I literally wanted to barf and I was sick to my stomach at the time (considering I have been consuming this type of fish and packaged brand) for several months, and the "thought" of consuming Carbon Monoxide (with what I personally knew about it) sickened me. I was so upset, that I didnt eat one of the pre planned fish meals and ate something else that day.
Of course, this sparked my investigative instinct and asked myself this question: "Why would frozen fish or other natural meats have Carbon Monoxide listed as one of the ingredients? Why would manufacturers and/or producers process this potentially "poisonous gas" (that can KILL a human being) with natural meat products? It didnt take long to locate one primary and difinitive answer: It makes packaged meat "retain" its natural fresh look longer (to make this a short sentence).
Information on Carbon Monoxide used with meat products are not in short supply, and its likewise FDA approved in its use. Let's say FDA stands for: F*cked-up Data Administration
. The links I provided are just to get the mind juices flowing. I have read extensively on the use of Carbon Monoxide through other reputatable articles; however, in a rather short conclusion, it is contended that it in the amount used, it is so small--it has no adverse affects, but there are critics.
Some packaged meat products dont even list Carbon Monoxide as part of the meat processing process, so one "could" be litterally consuming a meat product purchased from a supermarket (dependent upon where baught and what purchased) processed with Carbon Monoxide (and other chemicals) and not even know it.
This rather simple experience, really tweaked some thinking on how extremely perishable food items are processed, maintained, and shipped.
What's intersting to me, and the reason why I continually try to educate myself on these types of things, is the general disparity but yet some simularities between two persons doing the basic same eating and drinking habits (for sake of arguement), and one will live longer than the other.
Open up your hearts brotha ans sista's! Its all YOU. You have it in you to do what it takes,
Chillen
Last edited:
I eat a different packaged brand of Talapia and it has the same 98 calorie vaccumed serving sizes. It just lists the fish as the ingredient; however, I have some reservations on its preservation.
Do you think the bananas you purchase at the local produce are natural because they sit there showing there rather beautiful yellow/green butt in your face?
Bananas are a highly perishable item. You buy, and if they sit on the table/shelf etc, at home, it doesnt take long before (dare I say the word "natural" chemical process takes place) and they start turning brown/black over a short period of time (this process is normal though). Do you think its "possible" that these bananas (used in general terms) which are picked highly green (could have chemical preservatives added during the growth process) to aid in processing, maintaining, and shipping?
"In general" use, this is true. You really dont know what you are eating when you eat a banana (or other like pershible items). The separation of "organic" food and "foods not considered organic"---ought to hit you right between the eyeballs. If you studied the process of foods from growth, processing, maintaining, and shipping, on certain foods, it will make one's zit pop (LOL).
The same "can be" said for other highly perishable fruits and meats (and packaged foods, and foods in "most" resturaunts). Some of the chemicals used for the growth period, and subsequently processing, maintaining, and shipping period, are not "fully" disclosed (at least at the food market). I need to add that some resturaunts, have there meats directly shipped from the plant (i.e. beef processing plant, where the cattle is killed and processed), and may not have chemicals added in the process. Still others have their own propriety factories. However, one also has to consider, for example, how cattle is raised, and what food/chemicals they are eating prior to processing them. Have you considered this (for sake of thought). Is it or is it not a fact that what goes in our bodies effects us in some way? Okay, then since cattle are flesh and blood as well, it follows that what goes in them effects their body and size. Any, hoot, just to get the mental juices flowing. Im not indicating an opinion, just throwing this out there.
I just write in this manner to make one think, that is all. Maybe one can do some reading and learn a great deal on how are foods we think are so called natural......just may have "other" natural earthly products added to another natural food product, and we dont even know.
This topic can get rather controversial, and opinionated, because "some" of the chemicals used in packaging/preservation are considered
basically not having any ill effects on humans (and have some science study behind it subject to quality scrutiny), while others say they do (and state human examples and have some science study behind it subject to quality scrutiny).
Chillen
Do you think the bananas you purchase at the local produce are natural because they sit there showing there rather beautiful yellow/green butt in your face?
Bananas are a highly perishable item. You buy, and if they sit on the table/shelf etc, at home, it doesnt take long before (dare I say the word "natural" chemical process takes place) and they start turning brown/black over a short period of time (this process is normal though). Do you think its "possible" that these bananas (used in general terms) which are picked highly green (could have chemical preservatives added during the growth process) to aid in processing, maintaining, and shipping?
"In general" use, this is true. You really dont know what you are eating when you eat a banana (or other like pershible items). The separation of "organic" food and "foods not considered organic"---ought to hit you right between the eyeballs. If you studied the process of foods from growth, processing, maintaining, and shipping, on certain foods, it will make one's zit pop (LOL).
The same "can be" said for other highly perishable fruits and meats (and packaged foods, and foods in "most" resturaunts). Some of the chemicals used for the growth period, and subsequently processing, maintaining, and shipping period, are not "fully" disclosed (at least at the food market). I need to add that some resturaunts, have there meats directly shipped from the plant (i.e. beef processing plant, where the cattle is killed and processed), and may not have chemicals added in the process. Still others have their own propriety factories. However, one also has to consider, for example, how cattle is raised, and what food/chemicals they are eating prior to processing them. Have you considered this (for sake of thought). Is it or is it not a fact that what goes in our bodies effects us in some way? Okay, then since cattle are flesh and blood as well, it follows that what goes in them effects their body and size. Any, hoot, just to get the mental juices flowing. Im not indicating an opinion, just throwing this out there.
I just write in this manner to make one think, that is all. Maybe one can do some reading and learn a great deal on how are foods we think are so called natural......just may have "other" natural earthly products added to another natural food product, and we dont even know.
This topic can get rather controversial, and opinionated, because "some" of the chemicals used in packaging/preservation are considered
basically not having any ill effects on humans (and have some science study behind it subject to quality scrutiny), while others say they do (and state human examples and have some science study behind it subject to quality scrutiny).
Chillen
Last edited: