Artificial sugar vs real sugar

[Tauruslady5 154]

So, how sad is it that no one in the FORUM can handle any kinds of truth or opinion. You all get so hostile. It is a group, it is YOUR opinion.

Not one person needs to take any advice. This group is ADVICE, OPINION. If you are all so worried and think you are SO MUCH BETTER than anyone else, then I assume you are all doctors.

If you had read anything I had written. I had explained that even my surgeon, who is licensed and trained, had performed and is still doing a research on this very subject, because IT IS PROVEN THAT ARTIFICIAL SWEETENERS CAUSE CANCER.

Yes, so does the sun, cool whip (because it is plastic byproducts in this), so does Lucky Charms (because of a product). I understand all this.

It was a question, I gave my advice, and all you have done is attacked me for my OPINION>

I sometimes HATE this website, because it is like being in kindergarten where we attack each other for our opinion. If you do not like it, do not read it, DELETE it, who cares.

If you are so worried about artificial sweeteners, why your incisions hurt, should you be eating so much food, why you are gaining weight instead of loosing. Then ask a PROFESSIONAL not use who have had the surgery.

Because like @@Stevehud mentioned, "WE are the worst kind of irresponsible. If I had my way you would be up on charges for practicing medicine without a license". But then again, he is because he is a PARAMEDIC. Which, by the way, I deal with daily, and they are no smarter than an EMT, they just can give a medication to a patient in an ambulance.

BECAUSE you see, again this site if for opinions and helping WITHOUT A LICENSE...........

[ProjectMe 909]

@@Tauruslady5 I applaud you and anyone else who wonders about an issue and takes it upon him or herself to go out and independently search for an answer. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, and many of the greatest inventions and findings in this world began because someone had a question & wanted an answer. This type of independent research is applauded in academic circles as long as it's done ethically. And as far as I read no humans or animals were hurt during your research, so it's all good.

So again, bravo!

Regarding the cancer and artificial sweetener link...initially researchers found saccharin caused bladder cancer in rats. Which is why there was & maybe still is a warning label on those pink packets...the brand name was SweetNLow. As it stands currently medical research has found no CLEAR link between artificial sweeteners and cancer. "No clear link"...that verbiage is concerning on a number of levels. The research is still ongoing. There is no definite answer to what artificial sweeteners will do to the human body 20-40 years down the road. While the FDA regulates the sweetener industry and deems them safe for human consumption, while initially sounding reassuring....questions remain. How much artificial sweetener is okay? How often can it be consumed? What about 20+ years of consumption! what then? Does the FDA make mistakes? There are still too many variables...hence the reason this subject is still being researched.

Regarding artificial sweeteners and diabetes. My son is Type1 and was diagnosed at the age of 10. He is now 14, so we've had 4 years of diabetic education from the medical community including well known researchers as one of the major diabetic companies resides in our city. The human body does not distinguish between real sugar, honey, and artificial sweeteners, It all produces the same insulin/pancreatic reaction. Insulin rises. If a person chooses to have artifial sweeteners daily for 90 days..,that persons A1C will reflect that vs, an A1C of a person who didn't. This is common knowledge...not sure where the confusion was about this.

Regarding the comments regarding irresponsibility, and the general outrage because someone took the time to express their own research, the research the medical community is still engaged in, and for expressing their own beliefs...I challenge each of you to conduct your own basic research on the topic. This librarian shakes at the idea of suggesting "Google" as the search engine...but in this case, I think it will do.

Edited March 1, 2015 by ProjectMe

[changes1 14]

Wow! Couldn't agree with @"tauruslady5" better!!! This site is for opinions and views!!! All these people attacking her for posting her opinion, need to stop acting like the POLICE!!!! IM ASSUMING EVERYONE THAT IS MAKING THESE COMMENTS ARE EITHER POLICE OR LAWYERS, SINCE YOUR "OPINION" IS TO INCARCERATE HER!! RELAX, PEOPLE ITS NOT THAT SERIOUS! I bet a few of you have asked questions on this forum that should have been for your doctor instead of here!

[Inner Surfer Girl 12,015]

Tauruslady, I understand why you are upset, but I couldn't let your research go unchallenged because it does appear to be dangerous.

There is a difference between your surgeon doing research and an amateur using human test subjects.

Yes, continue reading and educating yourself but where you crossed the line was designing and administering a test on live human subjects. Tests like this have extremely stringent protocols. What you went beyond was a simple observation or survey. As someone pointed out, no one was hurt. We don't know that...your research design doesn't include any way to know that.

You seem to be enthusiastic about your subject which is great. But how you describe what you did is not. It would have been very irresponsible for me not to say something. I knew I risked your reacting like this but the danger to yourself and others far outway me getting my feelings hurt.

[ProjectMe 909]

@@Inner Surfer Girl We perform research quite a bit on our Type 1 son...daily in fact...as managing diabetes is not an exact science. Over time based on what we've learned we are better able to adjust his care accordingly. If the OP had friends willing to test their blood prior to consuming a packet of Splenda, then test again after...I'm not seeing where this is dangerous based on how I understand diabetes and through my son's experiences. The blood sugar will rise...this is not an immediately dangerous situation for diabetics. Immediately dangerous situations for diabetics is when blood sugar goes low, whether that is through a sudden drop or through it just dropping to an unsafe level. Then we may be talking comas.

That unsafe level depends on the diabetic as not everyone responds the same. Case in point, my son can function at a blood sugar of 35 enough to realize he's low and to drink juice or take a tablet to resolve. Someone else may just pass out at that same blood sugar level. Highs are manageable, and yes, over the long term, results in health problems for those who have trouble performing adequate self care.

There have been some assumptions and fallacies regarding diabetes in this thread. The term dangerous is being thrown around as if the person conducting the research was a mad scientist performing lab experiments on unsuspecting people... The point is research on artificial sweeteners is ongoing...and it is unclear whether they have a causal relationship with cancer.

Btw, the difference between a scientist and an "amateur" doing research is credentials...it does not mean that "amateur" research is invaluable. Which is why there are multiple/many research projects performed on the same subject. All are reviewed and underlying conclusions are made. The more research performed the more we understand about the issue.

Edited March 1, 2015 by ProjectMe

[blondebomb 580]

Perfect! Im scared of eating real sugar and not being able to loose all I can really loose.

I know everyone is differant but I use RAW organic sugar an coconut sugar an I steadily lose wkly..I do have stevia I use for our tea but I use raw sugar alot. the NUT I first saw tells her pts 10 grams of sugar or less a serving if eating something with sugar. I do eat organic Snacks but I am 7 months out an 100 pds down an I havnt had a problem. this might be an area that needs to be trial an error on personal level or stick to what works best for you personally. I carry liquid stevia in my purse..

[Justoperated 141]

I have started taking real sugar in my tea, about 5 cups daily. But then I hardly take carbs in any other form.

[Elode 8,093]

I can do either but I try to stay away from both. I do drink Protein Drinks however so I get some fake-ness there but that's my limit.

* let me clarify, I stay away from anything "added"

[@RealScoobyDoo 94]

The one thing that scared me into having the sleeve surgery was being diagnosed with prediabetes, and I was actually 0.1 off of the diagnosis of diabetes with an A1C of 6.4.

After the surgery, within 3 months I was, and continue to have normal blood sugars. I test myself fasting every 3 months.(I'm almost 2 years out from surgery).

I didn't do artificial sweeteners before the surgery, and after I find that most of them give me the trots or I don't like the taste. I don't drink my calories anymore in the form of sodas or sugary coffee drinks.

After your surgery you will need to see what your body can tolerate. Just keep in mind that the foods that cause us to become diabetic are those carbs like bread, Pasta, baked goodies, sugary drinks, etc. If you were a rat and ate nothing but artificial sweeteners all day long, I'm sure you would be covered in tumors and die young. But you're not. Making a choice between a packet or two a day of stevia, Truvia, Splenda, Sweet and Low, Nutrasweet or plain old sugar should not that big of a deal, IMHO.

[@RealScoobyDoo 94]

I have started taking real sugar in my tea, about 5 cups daily. But then I hardly take carbs in any other form.

5 cups of sugar might be a bit much.

[ProjectMe 909]

5 cups of sugar might be a bit much.

LOL, I think she meant 5 cups of tea

[Stevehud 1,790]

heres a simple thought so many fat people seem to know so much about being healthy yet cant get healthy themselves, so its do as i say not as I do because i tested 1 person who had diabetes, so therefore i know the truth. When i ask you what studies show artificial sweeteners not taken in tremendous bulk directly injected into lab mice has ever shown a correlation in humans. besides saccharin, and you cannot do it, because there are NONE but you say your surgeon is researching it. which is also amazing that a surgeon would be doing research not related to ther field of surgery. To me, youre lying over and over and what you are lying about is libelous and negligent. Then you want to attack paramedics by saying they know nothing but can give a few meds.Now i know maam you are so full of BS that you must have dark brown eyes. You are irresponsible, fraudulent and repulsive in your ideas.

Project ME, you research diabetes, you dont experiment on your son, thats what this lady supposedly ( i dont believe she knows what a research study actually is since she had no control group, no study plan, no baseline of findings, no medical reports. but hey shes a whack job so whatever) see if you told us you feed different foods to your son then stick him right after to se what his blood sugar is, and do this over and over to test medical facts, id say you were an unfit parent but you dont, you monitor your son and looks for ways to make his health better. there's the difference. This idiot lady says that sugar doesn't make your blood sugar go up. um if anyone knows of anyone with diabetes like your son project me, you all know this is the height of BS ive had family members die from diabetes who never were alive to injest a single artificial sweetener. bt hey dont let facts get in the way of irresponsibility. Nothing is worse than an idiot armed with a little false knowledge.

Here is the basic facts, when you go against established medical facts its not inventing or any such thing, hurt yourself, you can only blame yourself too bad so sad a darwin award goes your way. but when you promote it as fact to others you are disseminating lies to others in a medical context which as I said legally is libelous and can get you charged in a court of law. i can point out case after case of supporting case law to back that up. So because this lady works with paramedics she says she KNOWS what they know , see shes a secretary who thinks she knows more than the doctors do. Amazing. to be honest i would push to have her removed from this sight for promoting dangerous materials, but i assumes that he is such an idiot no one would listen, but just like the 9 eleven theory nuts and alien supporters, there's always a few nuts to cling on to their BS.

[Stevehud 1,790]

this happens to be the single mos disgusting thread ive ever read on a forum, human test subjects. Oh but some people think i should be a doctor. Yes and some ( me) think you should be locked away. You make my blood boil with how irresponsible you are. it angers me to no end. Taurus can you give me the name of your surgeon please id like to verify the veracity of your statements and ask about your so called study and that he approves of them. I dare you to provide the information to back up your "Stories" because it is amazing that someone who knows so much about being healthy since 2006 is so obese they had to get help from surgery I mean if you knew so much and knew all these secrets why are you fat? oops i used the F word. Dont worry i did a study on it!

[Stevehud 1,790]

by the way for the liars out there , this is from the National Cancer Institute.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/causes-prevention/risk-factors/diet/artificial-sweeteners-fact-sheet

1. Is there an association between artificial sweeteners and cancer?

   Questions about artificial sweeteners and cancer arose when early studies showed that cyclamate in combination with saccharin caused bladder cancer in laboratory animals. However, results from subsequent carcinogenicity studies (studies that examine whether a substance can cause cancer) of these sweeteners have not provided clear evidence of an association with cancer in humans. Similarly, studies of other FDA-approved sweeteners have not demonstrated clear evidence of an association with cancer in humans.

2. What have studies shown about a possible association between specific artificial sweeteners and cancer?

   Saccharin

   Studies in laboratory rats during the early 1970s linked saccharin with the development of bladder cancer. For this reason, Congress mandated that further studies of saccharin be performed and required that all food containing saccharin bear the following warning label: “Use of this product may be hazardous to your health. This product contains saccharin, which has been determined to cause cancer in laboratory animals.”

   Subsequent studies in rats showed an increased incidence of urinary bladder cancer at highdoses of saccharin, especially in male rats. However, mechanistic studies (studies that examine how a substance works in the body) have shown that these results apply only to rats. Humanepidemiology studies (studies of patterns, causes, and control of diseases in groups of people) have shown no consistent evidence that saccharin is associated with bladder cancer incidence.

   Because the bladder tumors seen in rats are due to a mechanism not relevant to humans and because there is no clear evidence that saccharin causes cancer in humans, saccharin was delisted in 2000 from the U.S. National Toxicology Program’s Report on Carcinogens, where it had been listed since 1981 as a substance reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen (a substance known to cause cancer). More information about the delisting of saccharin is available at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/eleventh/append/appb.pdf on the Internet. The delisting led to legislation, which was signed into law on December 21, 2000, repealing the warning label requirement for products containing saccharin.

   Aspartame

   Aspartame, distributed under several trade names (e.g., NutraSweet® and Equal®), was approved in 1981 by the FDA after numerous tests showed that it did not cause cancer or otheradverse effects in laboratory animals. Questions regarding the safety of aspartame were renewed by a 1996 report suggesting that an increase in the number of people with brain tumors between 1975 and 1992 might be associated with the introduction and use of this sweetener in the United States. However, an analysis of then-current NCI statistics showed that the overall incidence of brain and central nervous system cancers began to rise in 1973, 8 years prior to the approval of aspartame, and continued to rise until 1985. Moreover, increases in overall brain cancer incidence occurred primarily in people age 70 and older, a group that was not exposed to the highest doses of aspartame since its introduction. These data do not establish a clear link between the consumption of aspartame and the development of brain tumors.

   In 2005, a laboratory study found more lymphomas and leukemias in rats fed very high doses of aspartame (equivalent to drinking 8 to 2,083 cans of diet soda daily) (1). However, there were some inconsistencies in the findings. For example, the number of cancer cases did not rise with increasing amounts of aspartame as would be expected. An FDA statement on this study can be found athttp://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/2006/ucm108650.htm on the Internet.

   Subsequently, NCI examined human data from the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study of over half a million retirees. Increasing consumption of aspartame-containing beverages was not associated with the development of lymphoma, leukemia, or brain cancer (2).

   Acesulfame potassium, Sucralose, and Neotame

   In addition to saccharin and aspartame, three other artificial sweeteners are currently permitted for use in food in the United States:

   Before approving these sweeteners, the FDA reviewed more than 100 safety studies that were conducted on each sweetener, including studies to assess cancer risk. The results of these studies showed no evidence that these sweeteners cause cancer or pose any other threat to human health.

   Cyclamate

   Because the findings in rats suggested that cyclamate might increase the risk of bladder cancer in humans, the FDA banned the use of cyclamate in 1969. After reexamination of cyclamate’s carcinogenicity and the evaluation of additional data, scientists concluded that cyclamate was not a carcinogen or a co-carcinogen (a substance that enhances the effect of a cancer-causing substance). A food additive petition was filed with the FDA for the reapproval of cyclamate, but this petition is currently being held in abeyance (not actively being considered). The FDA’s concerns about cyclamate are not cancer related.

   • Acesulfame potassium (also known as ACK, Sweet One®, and Sunett®) was approved by the FDA in 1988 for use in specific food and beverage categories, and was later approved as a general purpose sweetener (except in meat and poultry) in 2002.
   • Sucralose (also known as Splenda®) was approved by the FDA as a tabletop sweetener in 1998, followed by approval as a general purpose sweetener in 1999.
   • Neotame, which is similar to aspartame, was approved by the FDA as a general purpose sweetener (except in meat and poultry) in 2002.

hmm guess she is lying.

[ProjectMe 909]

@@Stevehud I don't really know what to say. Your message, which I'm sure has possible valid points, gets lost in the translation. It's difficult to get past the "fat people" comment, the references to idiots and accusing a fellow poster of "lying". Your writing style & word choice subtracts greatly from your argument...Peace.

Edited March 2, 2015 by ProjectMe