CrossFit Discussion Board  

Go Back   CrossFit Discussion Board > CrossFit Forum > Nutrition
CrossFit Home Forum Site Rules CrossFit FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Nutrition Diet, supplements, weightloss, health & longevity

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-15-2007, 06:01 PM   #1
Steve Liberati
Affiliate Steve Liberati is offline
 
Steve Liberati's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Pennsauken  NJ
Posts: 1,649
Apparently the makers of splenda bought hundreds of negative domain names. The idea, I guess, is to keep someone from writing something nasty about Splenda.

Is there enough money in the world to buy enough domain names to keep a determined person from saying something nasty about Splenda?

http://www.sustainableisgood.com/blo...is_everyt.html
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2007, 07:49 PM   #2
Kevin McKay
Member Kevin McKay is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: albany   ca
Posts: 1,110
Go stevia

safe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevia
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2007, 05:47 AM   #3
Steve Liberati
Affiliate Steve Liberati is offline
 
Steve Liberati's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Pennsauken  NJ
Posts: 1,649
Yep stevia is where its at. Took some time to get used to the slight aftertaste, but now I prefer it over splenda (and her nasty sisters saccharin, maltodextrin, sucrose, etc).
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2007, 07:53 PM   #4
Skylar Cook
Member Skylar Cook is offline
 
Skylar Cook's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Jupiter  FL
Posts: 839
Biggest piece of government I've ever heard.

"In the United States, it is legal to import, grow, sell, and consume Stevia products if contained within or labeled for use as a dietary supplement, but not as a food additive."

I hope Wikipedia's sources are off, or I'm going to be practicing a little Civil Disobedience eating stevia out of spite.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2007, 08:19 AM   #5
Stuart Mather
Member Stuart Mather is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Brisbane  Queensland
Posts: 3
I like the fact that stevia is natural. But its direct stimulatory effect on the islet cells of the pancreas raising insulin, completely independently of blood sugar signals, makes it seem to be not a very sensible food. Perhaps that's why diabetics rave about it. It spares them some of the need to inject insulin.

I know splenda is a chlorinated molecule. But then so is common salt. I've read so much testimonial condemnation of splenda, and I always wonder why four years of daily splenda use has personally never caused any side effects whatsoever, except the big one of still being able to enjoy intense sweet without the metabolic downside of calorific intense sweet. I am a bit curious that so many people on low carb fora who profess scientific objectivity always seem to lose it the moment sucralose is mentioned. It has been extensively tested in well designed and executed research over many decades throughout the world, and not even once has any concern ever been established about its safety in humans. Yet the testinmonial scuttlebutt and 'unnatural' speculation gurgles along nevertheless.

Stuart.



(Message edited by kneebrace on March 19, 2007)
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2007, 09:53 PM   #6
Alain Latour
Member Alain Latour is offline
 
Alain Latour's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto  On
Posts: 87
Well said Stuart. I'm a new member, and I'm not a chemist, but I have done my research and agree with you.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2007, 08:09 AM   #7
Kevin McKay
Member Kevin McKay is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: albany   ca
Posts: 1,110
wikipedia articles on stevia and splenda

Safe links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucralose
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevia

For what is is worth I have used stevia heavily at times with no noticeable impact on body comp so I am guessing the insulin response is negligible also people have been eating stevia for a long time.



(Message edited by kmckay on March 21, 2007)
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2007, 09:00 PM   #8
James Falkner
Member James Falkner is offline
 
James Falkner's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Orlando  FL
Posts: 608
I thought I read somewhere that anything that tastes sweet (be it from sugar, splenda, stevia, etc) causes the same insulin response. That is, it's the *perception* of sweet that produces the response, not a chemical reaction.

Is that true? If so, then could you produce insulimn merely by visualizing yourself eating candy?

I personally find that hard to believe. However, I read it on this board somewhere.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2007, 09:04 PM   #9
Kevin McKay
Member Kevin McKay is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: albany   ca
Posts: 1,110
Yes, I believe it is true based on what I have read from the great pm sage Rob Wolf, but I have found that it was not significant enough to impact my body comp noticeably.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2007, 04:24 PM   #10
Garrett Smith
Member Garrett Smith is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Tucson  AZ
Posts: 2,264
*Artificial* sweetener.

That alone should be enough to scare anyone with any knowledge of the FDA and pharmaceutical companies off in a rush.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mike's gym in the news Tom Whalen Community 13 08-06-2007 05:40 AM
Any comments on Splenda Jeff Bearden Nutrition 2 10-06-2006 08:05 PM
Where do you get your news from? Ryan Abbott Community 25 12-29-2005 12:14 PM
Question about Splenda Scott Kustes Nutrition 6 08-05-2005 08:41 PM
Splenda Jeff Reiser Nutrition 13 11-13-2003 06:23 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:16 PM.


CrossFit is a registered trademark of CrossFit Inc.