Amiga.org
Coffee House => Coffee House Boards => CH / Science and Technology => Topic started by: gizz72 on August 24, 2004, 01:25:48 AM
-
Greetings,
One of my friends emailed me about sweeteners are really causing bad side effects? Any explanations to this?
BTW here's the email(I edited away any names here, and left the facts intact as it stated):
>One local representative calls on to 'Ban' on >NutrasweetBan on other aspartame sweeteners sought. The >technical name for artificial sweeteners or substitutes >such as NutraSweet, Spoonful, and Equal-Measure, which she >said is by far, the most dangerous food additive on the >market.
>
>According to them, it accounts for over 75 percent of the >adverse reactions to food additives reported to the US >Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
>Among the documented symptoms caused by aspartame >according to them were headaches, dizziness, seizures, >nausea, numbness, muscle spasms, weight gain,
>rashes, depression, fatigue, irritability, tachycardia, >insomnia, vision problems, hearing loss, heart >palpitations, breathing difficulties, anxiety
>attacks, slurred speech, loss of taste, tinitus, vertigo, >memory loss, and joint pain.
>
>She added researchers and physicians studying the adverse >effects of aspartame
>found out that the following chronic illnesses can be >triggered or worsened by ingesting aspartame: brain >tumors, multiple sclerosis, >epilepsy, chronic fatigue >syndrome, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, mental >retardation, lymphoma, birth defects, fibromyalgia and >diabetes.
>
>It seeks to ban their use on food, beverages and drugs >such as instant breakfasts, cereals, frozen dessert, >gelatin dessert, yogurt, milk drinks, shake mixes, cocoa >mixes, beverages such as coffee, tea and juice, soft >drinks, table top sweeteners, topping mixes, wine coolers, >breath mints, sugar-free chewing gum, multivitamins and >pharmaceuticals and supplements.
Wow, I'm using sweerter just to prevent me from using real sugar(white/refined). Our family had a history of diabeties.
I never knew this things can also cause it??
You guys agree to this statement? Thanks. :-)
Regards,
Gizz
-
Aspartame poisoning is one of those big, groundless paranoid hoaxes. Aspartame (and its metabolite, phenylalanine) are found in nature and the human body possesses many enzymes to break it down. We also need phenylalanine, since its an essential amino acid. The only bad part is that its digestion creates very small quantities of methanol, a poison which damages proteins and attacks the nervous system. We also have enzymes to deal with that, however, since our diet consists of many peptides which liberate methanol on digestion.
Among the documented symptoms caused by aspartame >according to them were headaches, dizziness, seizures, >nausea, numbness, muscle spasms, weight gain,
>rashes, depression, fatigue, irritability, tachycardia, >insomnia, vision problems, hearing loss, heart >palpitations, breathing difficulties, anxiety
>attacks, slurred speech, loss of taste, tinitus, vertigo, >memory loss, and joint pain.
These are not caused by aspartame in ordinary people, but on people who have a genetic disease called PKU. This disease prevents them metabolising phenylalanine which then builds up and can cause many health problems, including retardation. The PKU test is done shortly after birth. If you don't know you have PKU, you don't have it.
That's not to say you couldn't get poisoned if you ate too much of aspartame (just like anything else) - but man, you'd really need to eat a LOT before the buildup of methanol became an issue. Something like 10 kilograms of the stuff - and the ordinary aspartame sweetener is only about 2% aspartame. It's probably physically impossible.
And the key argument of using phenylalanine - and other sweeteners - they may have some toxic element to them, but they're a LOT safer than real sugar. These "phenylalanine is evil!!" people should just look at the deaths connected to diabetes and obesity alone.
-
I remember reading that the big problem with phenylalanine and aspartame was about depression that could be caused by microscopic amounts...does this fall into the above categories too??
-
Wain wrote:
I remember reading that the big problem with phenylalanine and aspartame was about depression that could be caused by microscopic amounts...does this fall into the above categories too??
Actual research into this has come back with inconclusive results. While there is no evidence (and no particular medical reason) that aspartame affects ordinary people, evidence does seem to hint that it can have an effect upon people who already have mood disorders. So basically, aspartame will only make you more depressed if you're already a depressive, or if a jar of it falls off a shelf and kills someone you know.
Much more important was the finding that those patients given high doses of aspartame sometimes developed eye problems. This is probably related to methanol. Again, nobody gets these kind of doses anyway, but those with eye problems already should avoid it just in case.
(If you want real eye problems, become diabetic. Eating lots of sugar instead would be better for that than aspartame.)
-
I can't say this loud enough.
[color=CC0000]USE SPLENDA!![/color][/b]
It tastes just like sugar, because it is made from the same plant as sugar. The diference is it has minimal to no effect on blood sugar. I don't eat anything with sugar, and i steer clear of artificial sweetners like Nutrisweet as much as possible. Splenda is wonderful and more products are being made with it.
-
I've been looking into Splenda, or rather Sucralose. It's very intresting, it is simply a chlorinated (a few OH groups are replaced with Chlorine) sucrose (common table sugar) molecule.
It is somthing like 400 times sweeter than sucrose, which means you need less of it to sweeten food/drink. It's behavour is very similar to surcose, and does appear to be less digestable than sucrose.
It was dicovered around 20 years ago, but only last year was it approved for human consumption in Europe. (Canada since '92 and the US since '99 IIRC).
It look like a winner, my only criticism is that it has a strange (slightly bitter) after taste.
-
bloodline wrote:
I've been looking into Splenda, or rather Sucralose. It's very intresting, it is simply a chlorinated (a few OH groups are replaced with Chlorine) sucrose (common table sugar) molecule.
Hmm. I did wonder what the forumation was.
One assumes that the chlorinated molecule still keys into the sweet taste receptors but doesn't quite fit the active sites on those enzymes that are there to break it down and oxidise it for ATP generation, hence no calories.
However, (and this mostly depends which -OH groups have been substituted) is it metabolised by any other processes in the body, I wonder? I can't imagine a build up of chlorinated polysaccherides that aren't (as) easily processed normal ones.
I don't to sound alarmist and I'm sure the studies have been done but chlorinated organics are generally quite hazardous in the long term. It only takes some process to release chlorocarbon radicals in the body for some real potential damage (many insecticides rely on this effect) to occur.
-
Karlos wrote:
However, (and this mostly depends which -OH groups have been substituted) is it metabolised by any other processes in the body, I wonder? I can't imagine a build up of chlorinated polysaccherides that aren't (as) easily processed normal ones.
Nope, Splenda/Surcralose goes straight through the body. Those big chlorine groups make it as unreactive as hell (stearic hindrance), although it still has the hydroxyl kick it needs to make it taste sweet. When we studied sweeteners at uni and how they work, sucralose hadn't been approved yet. That's not because it's nasty, but because the FDA are understandably anal about what goes into food.
You're quite right to be wary of chlorine radicals. I really don't like the idea of filling myself full of organochlorides. Tests on sucralose said in theory it could be changed to chlorofructose in the body or in the sewers later by bacteria, quite a nasty chemical. I wouldn't opt for Splenda. The environment has enough alien chlorine based horrors floating around.
-
KennyR wrote:
Nope, Splenda/Surcralose goes straight through the body. Those big chlorine groups make it as unreactive as hell (stearic hindrance), although it still has the hydroxyl kick it needs to make it taste sweet.
Same basic overall shape and dipole presumably helps fool the taste receptors. The chlorine, however, shouldn't tightly bond to the active sites in enzymes that would metabolise (IIRC hydrogen bonding plays an important role in the keying of sugars to the appropriate enzymes) it.
Few questions (not knowing the overall structure of it)
Does sucralose hydrolyse into chlorinated glucose in the same way as ordinary sucrose?
Do (if they occur) the chlorinated glucose molecules still exist as open chain form in solution?
If this occurs, it isn't impossible that they can be incorporated into polysaccherides (linking glucose units together isn't the same as breaking them down for energy production and hence may not be affected by the chloro substitution as readily), even if they can't be metabolised as a fuel source. That would imply long term storage of these molecules in the liver etc. that could prove dangerous in the (very) long term.
When we studied sweeteners at uni and how they work, sucralose hadn't been approved yet. That's not because it's nasty, but because the FDA are understandably anal about what goes into food.
One should hope so too. That said, they already allow a great deal of crap into food that is known (despite being passed at the time) to have adverse effects, especially in the levels that are permitted.
You're quite right to be wary of chlorine radicals. I really don't like the idea of filling myself full of organochlorides. Tests on sucralose said in theory it could be changed to chlorofructose in the body or in the sewers later by bacteria, quite a nasty chemical. I wouldn't opt for Splenda. The environment has enough alien chlorine based horrors floating around.
Quite.
-
Karlos wrote:
Same basic overall shape and dipole presumably helps fool the taste receptors. The chlorine, however, shouldn't tightly bond to the active sites in enzymes that would metabolise (IIRC hydrogen bonding plays an important role in the keying of sugars to the appropriate enzymes) it.
Sweet taste receptors aren't all that sophisticated. All you basically need is an active hydroxyl group to trigger the sweet taste. Anything that looks like sugar, will taste like sugar. (Acesulfame-K has no OH group but H O and H groups are close enough that can interact.) Most alcohols and ketones will taste sweet to the human tongue.
Does sucralose hydrolyse into chlorinated glucose in the same way as ordinary sucrose?
Not to my knowledge. The stearic hindrance of the huge chlorine atoms prevents easy hydrolysation.
Do (if they occur) the chlorinated glucose molecules still exist as open chain form in solution?
I'm not sure, but my guess is they only exist as open chain. Sucralose doesn't denature with cooking, which seems to indicate it doesn't change chemically. It probably doesn't even caramelise. So the ring form of glucose may be impossible to form (once again, those big chlorines blocking everything off). This is a guess, however.
-
(blows some cobwebs of crusty chemical knowledge)
Hmm, if they only exist in the open chain form, I wonder what the crystal form is like? Also, IIRC, sucrose is a 1,6' condensate of a pair of glucose rings. Only after hydrolysis does it break down into individual glucose rings that can open into chains.
As an open chain is a very high entropy system (so many conformations are possible with a similar energy), I can't imagine it would crystalise too readily so maybe it does exist in ring confromation?
Glucose tends to prefer its ring format in the crystal - an ordered shape with directional hydrogen bonding to reinforce the overall structure.
All intersting stuff, but I wouldn't want to eat it :-D
Hint to sweet toothed people: Just dont eat as much high sugar food if you are worried about weight / teeth!
-
KennyR wrote:
Sweet taste receptors aren't all that sophisticated. All you basically need is an active hydroxyl group to trigger the sweet taste. Anything that looks like sugar, will taste like sugar.
Quite odd that water itself is taseless, eh ? :-D
-
Karlos wrote:
Hmm, if they only exist in the open chain form, I wonder what the crystal form is like?
There's always the possibility that it doesn't crystalise. For covalent compounds you need hydrogen bonding for that, and as you know chlorine is quite electronegative and likes to repel. Chlorine compounds are almost always non-polar. Put it this way, have you ever seen an organochloride in crystal form? I've only ever seen liquids and waxes.
As an open chain is a very high entropy system (so many conformations are possible with a similar energy), I can't imagine it would crystalise too readily so maybe it does exist in ring confromation?
(http://www.biosite.dk/staabi/images/sucralose.gif)
Maybe. ;)
-
Quite odd that water itself is taseless, eh ? :-D
Not really Karlos, you know that water dissociates into polar hydronium and hydroxide ions, don't you? :)
-
I use DDT.
-
We know, evil conservative.
-
Does artificial sweeteners are really that bad?
You have no chance to survive. Make your time. Ha, ha, ha!
-
KennyR wrote:
Quite odd that water itself is taseless, eh ? :-D
Not really Karlos, you know that water dissociates into polar hydronium and hydroxide ions, don't you? :)
Of course (I was also joking), but the dissociation constant for water is pretty damn small. The vast majority of any quantity of water consists of HOH at any given instant. Of course, in the next instant it isn't neccessarily the same set of molecules you just looked at, thanks the chain propagation mechanism that allows the ultra high mobility of hydronium ions ;-)
Water. Funkier than most people realise...
-
KennyR wrote:
(http://www.biosite.dk/staabi/images/sucralose.gif)
Dug around my old notes. Sterically, -Cl isn't as big as -OH as the latter occupies a larger volume (think of the overall space occupuied by that group rotating though every degree of freedom it has). However looks like that's not the main issue here. The -Cl in this molecule are strategically placed where most metabolic agents try to bond with. You can't shove your phoshphate linkage onto the CH2-Cl unit like you should be able to with the original CH2-OH, so there isn't anything for the activating enzymes to get hold of.
Structurally however, there is nothing immediately obvious (to my eye) that prevents that molecule dissosiating into a seperate chlorinated glucose / fructose pair - the centeral linkage is not protected by anything close enough to block dissosiation by acid catalysed hydrolysis.
Again it would seem to come down to the fact that the dissociated molecules still have their most biologically important -OH linkage replaced with -Cl. The glucose unit (left) cannot be added to an existing chain of glucose units but it could conciveably start a new one. Hence, I'm not totally convinced the body couldn't store this material (although metabolising it is impossible without linking phosphate).
-
Karlos wrote:
Structurally however, there is nothing immediately obvious (to my eye) that prevents that molecule dissosiating into a seperate chlorinated glucose / fructose pair - the centeral linkage is not protected by anything close enough to block dissosiation by acid catalysed hydrolysis.
After a little research, I found that sucralose WILL hydrolyse, but only under "conditions of high temperature and extreme acidity". Apparently the human digestive system does not qualify. It passes right through the body and doesn't trigger insulin, carbohydrate metabolism, digestion, or glucose-sensitive mechanisms. Apparently, its almost totally inert inside us.
If that inertness isn't caused by stearic hindrance then I'm lost for an explanation. Organic chemistry was never my prime forte.
-
KennyR wrote:
If that inertness isn't caused by stearic hindrance then I'm lost for an explanation. Organic chemistry was never my prime forte.
As I say, I'm pretty sure that, metabolically at least, the terminal Cl groups defeat any attempt at activation by phosphorylation, thus denying one's metabolism to get a handle on the thing. Just as well really ;-)
-
But the *main* problem with all the artificial sweeteners I've tasted is that they all taste like dogpoo which has been left rotting under a infrared light for half a year.
-
odin wrote:
But the *main* problem with all the artificial sweeteners I've tasted is that they all taste like dogpoo which has been left rotting under a infrared light for half a year.
Man, I'm all for creative culinary flair, but you really need to watch what you go around experimenting with :lol:
-
Of course sweeteners are never as nice as sugar. But I consider it worth it to not spend the last 30 years of my life pricking my fingers every four hours to draw blood and test my blood sugar, and stabbing myself with a five inch needle containing insulin after every meal, just to avoid going into shock and dying. And even doing that doesn't mean you wont go blind, lose limbs, or die of kidney or liver damage.
No...I prefer my pancreas actually working. Less sugar means less wear and tear on the insulin cells. That's a good enough reason for me to prefer a bad tasting sugar substitute.
-
Do you eat abnormal amounts of sugar then?
Now if your were my father, then I'd suggest using sweeteners. He eats so much sugar it's a miracle he doesn't do insuline shots yet :lol:.
-edit crappy grammar-
-
Odin wrote:
Now if your were my father, then I'd suggest using sweeteners. He eats so much sugar it's a miracle he doesn't insuline shots yet.
Mine almost does, and it depresses me like you wouldn't imagine. I'm next in line, it runs in my family. Even if I avoid sugar totally, chances are I'll still become diabetic.
Even if it doesn't run in the family, most 25+ people who eat too much sugar will probably already be living in a state of insulin resistance, and aren't more than a decade or two away from full blown Type II diabetes.
It would be great if there wasn't such a culture of over indulgence in the West. But since there is, I'll accept sweeteners as a practical godsend. (Even if they do taste like crap. ;-) )
-
KennyR wrote:
Odin wrote:
Now if your were my father, then I'd suggest using sweeteners. He eats so much sugar it's a miracle he doesn't insuline shots yet.
Mine almost does, and it depresses me like you wouldn't imagine. I'm next in line, it runs in my family. Even if I avoid sugar totally, chances are I'll still become diabetic.
Which sugars were you thinking of avoiding. If only sucrose, there isn't much point.
Carbs? (http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/diabetes-4.html)
As for aspartame, a can of diet pop will decompose to give about as much methanol as you find in a bottle of juice. However, the bottle of juice also contains ethanol which metabolically competes with methanol. The fruit juice also preferentially binds methanol. If you accidentally drink a small quantity of meths, drink a lot of fruit juice!
The body has enzymes to break down ethanol, and the first step is ethanol to acetaldehyde, which is then broken down by other enzyme. When methanol is metabolized, the first step is methanol to formaldehyde, and that is the end of the line. Small amounts of methanol over time will gradually embalm you.
-
FluffyMcDeath wrote:
Which sugars were you thinking of avoiding. If only sucrose, there isn't much point.
Carbs?
Starches, carageenans, polyols and other carbohydrates are the slow burners. They are invaluable for diabetics because of their slow, constant release rate. Without carbohydrates and sugars, I wouldn't die of diabetes complications, I'd die of starvation, or would end up being forced to overeat to deal with the hypoglycemia caused by lack of available blood glucose. That would trigger hyperglycemia.
Current medical advice is: carbs are good for diabetics. Quick burn sugars are bad. Fats are especially bad, since high cholesterol is a very common side effect of diabetes.
When methanol is metabolized, the first step is methanol to formaldehyde, and that is the end of the line.
Not true, formaldehyde is metabolised very quickly by the body, into formic acid and paraformaldehyde, and either flushed out or changed into something else. Formaldehyde and methanol is being created in your body right now in fairly large quantities by digestion, and not of aspartame. The actual amount added by aspartame is trivial.
-
KennyR wrote:
FluffyMcDeath wrote:
Which sugars were you thinking of avoiding. If only sucrose, there isn't much point.
Carbs?
Starches, carageenans, polyols and other carbohydrates are the slow burners.
Eat a plate of pasta and say carbs are slow burners!! Starches are partly lysed to glucose etc before you even finish chewing.
When methanol is metabolized, the first step is methanol to formaldehyde, and that is the end of the line.
Not true, formaldehyde is metabolised very quickly by the body, into formic acid [...][/quote]
I did not know that, but it seems it is so. In fact it seems that it is the formic acid that does you in...
methanol poisoning (http://www-clinpharm.medschl.cam.ac.uk/pages/teaching/topics/poison/poison9.html).
-
@KennyR
and artificial sweetners may cause obesity...
link (http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002211.html)
which is not a healthy thing even if you are not diabetic.
-
FluffyMcDeath wrote:
Eat a plate of pasta and say carbs are slow burners!! Starches are partly lysed to glucose etc before you even finish chewing.
Nobody denies that the body turns these into sugar, but it does it slowly enough for low to medium 'grade' diabetics to produce enough insulin over time. Denied fat, carbs, and sugar, what do people actually have to eat? You can't survive on protein alone, considering that you're supposed to do a lot of exercise to get the tired out insulin glands running at all. And even if you could, the ketone biproducts of continuous protein digestion are almost as nasty as methanol.
As for formic acid, like any poisons it depends where it is and how much of it there is. Formic acid produced by digestion doesn't seem to be a problem, or we'd soon die. Drinking alcohol in large quantities produces similar quantities of acetaldehyde and acetic acid, chemically similar products. Possibly formic acid and formaldehyde produced in the liver never gets to the blood, where it can attack the CNS and small blood vessels.
-
KennyR wrote:
[As for formic acid, like any poisons it depends where it is and how much of it there is. Formic acid produced by digestion doesn't seem to be a problem, or we'd soon die. Drinking alcohol in large quantities produces similar quantities of acetaldehyde and acetic acid, chemically similar products.
It takes much more ethanol than methanol to kill you. And you can help a guy out who's had a bit of the meths by giving him booze to prevent the production of formic acid as the eths out compeats the meths for enzymatic attention. Generally, in nature, where you find meth you find eth, so safe up that diet coke and add a little rum! (Rum and diet coke is even more disgusting than rum and regular coke IMHO)
-
Hmmm..
Does
artificial sweeteners
are really that bad?
:lol:
-
iamaboringperson wrote:
Hmmm..
Does
artificial sweeteners
are really that bad?
:lol:
Sweeten every zig. make your time.
;-)
-
Fluffy wrote:
Generally, in nature, where you find meth you find eth, so safe up that diet coke and add a little rum! (Rum and diet coke is even more disgusting than rum and regular coke IMHO)
Or just drink regular coke. Rum is full of sugar anyway, so it sort of defeats the point. :)
-
KennyR wrote:
Fluffy wrote:
Generally, in nature, where you find meth you find eth, so safe up that diet coke and add a little rum! (Rum and diet coke is even more disgusting than rum and regular coke IMHO)
Or just drink regular coke. Rum is full of sugar anyway, so it sort of defeats the point. :)
It is?!?!
Gah!!! that's just blown my Low Carb diet :-(
-
Actually it depends on the rum. Some kinds have virtually no sugar in them at all.
Anyway, what's the point on going on a diet if you're going to drink? Alcohol has a lot of calories too. (Indeed, it technically *is* a carb.)
-
KennyR wrote:
Actually it depends on the rum. Some kinds have virtually no sugar in them at all.
Anyway, what's the point on going on a diet if you're going to drink? Alcohol has a lot of calories too. (Indeed, it technically *is* a carb.)
Yeah, but I like ot have a glass every now and then to numb reality for a few hours.
-
@bloodline
Try TV as an alternative :lol:
Unfortunately it has lasting side effects...