I have read lately that both Splenda and SomerSweet do NOT cause spikes in insulin as do other AS's. Does anyone know about this? As I understand it, these came on the market AFTER the Hellers published their books, so they may not have researched these specifically. I do understand what they are saying as to the body being fooled by the TASTE of the AS, thus releasing insulin in response to ANY sweet thing, even if it has no actual carbs... BUT since reading that Splenda has been actually tested and did not cause a release of insulin... I guess I am looking for confirmation that using it will not cause a stall.
Anyone know about this?
Thanks,
Chana

SomerSweet I thought was just fructose wasn't it?

Off the subject, is your name really chana? If so how do you pronounce it? My name is chana pronounced like 'shauw-na'.

Somersweet does contain some fructose, but that's not the main ingredient ( I don't have any with me right now to check what is). But my point is that both somersweet and Splenda are said NOT to cause any insulin release, which is the whole point of avoiding AS in the first place, so I wonder if anyone has any info or experience about this. I think it is interesting in light of the fact that the Hellers say that even tasting something that tastes like sugar can cause an insulin spike, even if it's not really sugar.... and the research would seem to contradict this...

They say something sweet can cause a reaction In a sever carb addict. So for the normal person, no it has no reaction. For a carb addict though it might. I think it's something individual for sever addicts, soem do and some don't. For non-addicts it is safe. Was the research done on a cross sample of the population including carb addicts, or just general population where they may or may not be addicts.

Also fructose is a sugar. It's handled differently by the body and passes through your liver, but isn't a sugar a sugar and will cause a reaction? Isn't this why fruit is an absolute no-no outside of RM?

I was diagnosed as a severe hypoglycemic ( at the lab during the test my bloodsugar went to 32, it's supposed to be around 80-120. That's about as severe as you can get regarding insulin response and carb addiction. I have a blood sugar monitor to test my sugar when I feel my symptoms come on. Never had any problems with Splenda, and I don't know how much the word "extreme" means to the Hellers, but my doctor said he had never seen blood sugar so low in his practice. I personally assume that the Heller's are a little paranoid in this area, but I guess it's up to each person to figure out what works for them. So, I guess my point is, if Splenda doesn't cause insulin reactions in me, a severe hypoglycemic, i'm not sure what what type of person the Heller's are talking about. By the way, try Stevia extract as a sweetener if in doubt. I really like it, and it's all natural. Good luck to everybody!!!

There is a good web site in the UK www.splenda.co.uk take a look and select (on the left side) "living well with splenda" then take the sub topic "diabetes & Splenda"

It states in a cople of places:

"does not effect blood glucose or insulin levels"

"not recognised by your body as carbohydrate"

I have a problem with truth-in-packaging with the entire so-called artifical sweetener industry. As I understand it, all of the following applies:

1) Dr. Atkins recommends against Aspartame/Nutrisweet because he observed the kind of reaction discussed here, i.e., the body reacts to non-carb sweeteners with an insulin response as if it actually was sugar. Presumably this varies with the individual, but I believe he was not generalizing this to ANY non-carb sweetener, just Aspartame.

Additionally, he was always partial to Cyclamates (not easily obtained, but legal again in the USA since 1997) and I believe he would have coupled Cyclamates to his non-recommendation for Aspartame if it applied.

I'm not sure of his position on Sacharrin, but it's not very popular due to the bitter aftertaste.

More recently, he seemed to be squarely behind Splenda/Sucralose as acceptable which would seem to confirm the notion that you cannot generalize, i.e., for some people and some people only, only some artificial sweeteners will cause an insulin reaction as if they were sugar, even though they are not.

2) Fructose IS a sugar, yet for some people there isn't a corresponding insulin reaction. In this case, not enough reaction could be worse than too much reaction. Again, it's an individual thing, but ultimately sugar is sugar in terms of how much glucose equivalent it becomes as to what actual effects take place, etc.

3) I have heard a lot of praise for Stevia, but primarily from sources I wouldn't trust (vegans, who seem to use it as an "excuse" to prove that all but "natural" foods are bad for you unconditionally even when they have to admit that "natural" sugar is also bad for you, thus there is still a natural "out" to the issue that "natural" foods serve "all" of your dietary needs, including the need to have something sweet while staying all natural while avoiding carbs, etc.). However, when I tried it, it was quite bitter mostly as an aftertaste, sort of like a "super" form of Sacharrin. [Sacharrin seems to be truly an aftertaste effect of some bitternest, while Stevia seemed to have the bitterness come on during the taste, etc.]

4) I cannot obtain Aspartame, Sucralose, etc. in any form other than in diet soda, where it's not in the presence of OTHER carbohydrates such as maltodextrin, or worse some witch's brew of either sucrose, dextrose, or lactose.

Yes, anyone claiming to get these sweeteners is being duped! I am NOT saying these are sugars claiming to be non-carbohydrate artificial sweeteners, but what I AM saying is that they are PACKAGED with ordinary sugars!! [READ THE LABEL ON ANY PACKAGED ARTIFICIAL SWEETENER and read just how much well over 90% the actual contents is some form or other of sugar. Most common are: so-called Nutrisweet brand: Mostly maltodextrin, a carb, lesser ingredient Aspartame. Nutrisweet in those cute little blue packets: Dextrose over 90%, the rest essentially the same as the Nutrisweet brand in the larger container. Yes, essentially the blue packets are the original product, already over 90% maltodextrin, cut to less than 10% total, the rest being pure sugar! In this case, the Aspartame is now the THIRD ingredient! Don't think Splenda is any better: The big box is mostly maltodextrin while the little packets are mostly sugar with a little maltodextrin thrown in that happens to itself contain an even tinier amount of sucralose! Even Sweet 'n Low or Sugar Twin have Sacharrin as the minority ingrediet; the major one is either "nutrative dextrose" or lactose, which in my case is even worse as I am lactose intolerant!]

So, yes, It's all fine and dandy to talk about the theoretical problem of what artificial sweeteners may/may not be causing sugar-resemblant insulin reactions in people taking the sweeteners, but other than in certain sodas [extremely few on the market, but it's slowly coming!] where is this source of these sweeteners all are discussing which are NOT surrounded by overwhelming amounts of actual sugars?!

cjl

ps: In some cases, the packaging obfuscates the true contents. You get things like [in fine print you need a microscope to read!] total weight: 1 gram. Carbohydrate contents: LESS THAN ONE GRAM. Well, how much less? <no-comment> How about virtually no less than one gram since the damn thing is 96.5% pure sugar and the pitiful rest might be something non-carb sweetener in such an insignificant amount you can't even reliably calculate just how little, and it really doesn't matter, since for all intents and purposes, all these packets, white, pink, blue, yellow are ALL SUGAR!

pps: The soda industry is guilty of a related thing: sodium content. Be advised that only NO means no for this. "Very low sodium" is a euphemism for essentially so much sodium that were they to add any more, most people would notice that the sweetener doesn't mask the salty taste. There are only the two points on the curve: None and "very low". While I personally don't have much of a problem with salt, it affects certain people greatly and contributes to edema/water retention/high blood pressure, etc.

So how are these companies getting away with this? Because the packaging doesn't actually, lie, it just obfuscates the information so while it's staring you in the face, you cannot comprehend the information. Thus, just as good as lying.

cjl (go get your best magnifying glass out and read it for yourself!]

Hi CLASYS,

While your facts are accurate about the content of artificial sweeteners, I don't feel that there is really any deliberate deception in the way that these sweeteners are sold and packaged, especially when you compare them to the high calorie/high carb sweeteners they replace. The packaging tends to emphasize equivalent sweetness and lower calories than sugar and this is accurate. Take Splenda for example. Yes, it lists maltodextrin as the main ingredient and then sucralose second. But look at the serving size: 1 teaspoon or 0.5 grams. Splenda claims to measure cup for cup (or spoon for spoon) to table sugar. My own personal taste indicates that this is a conservative estimate because if I use an equal measure of Splenda to flavor a glass of ice tea as I would sugar, it is too sweet. In other words, if I usually use two teaspoons of sugar to sweeten my tea, I would only use 1-1.5 teaspoons of Splenda to get the same sweetness. Now suppose that Splenda is 99 percent maltodextrin and 1 percent sucralose. A .5 gram (1 teaspoon) serving of Splenda would still only contain .495 grams of carbohydrate or about two calories. If I used 1 teaspoon of sugar instead, it would contain 4 grams of carbohydrate and have 16 calories. And I would probably use more sugar because I wouldn't think one teaspoon would be sweet enough. The bottom line is that, even by conservative estimates, Splenda has one-eighth the carbs of the amount of sugar that would have the equivalent sweetness. That is very significant to the low-carb dieter. The maltodextrin is necessary to give the sweetener some bulk, because if it was just plain sucralose it would be so concentrated it would be difficult to package and measure. This is a problem with stevia and could explain why you thought it had a funky taste. Stevia is extremely concentrated and, interestingly, gets bitter if you add too much. I have had very good results using a liquid version that is meaured with a dropper. I would put about 3 drops in a glass of tea or 18 drops in a 2 quart pitcher. My wife and children also found it to be very pleasant tasting. Powdered stevia that has no bulking agent has to be measured out in such small quantities that you have to use a special miniature spoon or the end of a flat toothpick. It is very easy to get too much and then the taste is ruined. As a result, there are stevia powders that have added maltodextrin or other sugars to make it easier to measure. It is interesting to note that all-natural stevia that has been used for centuries in South America can only be purchased in the US as a dietary supplement and has not been approved by the FDA as a food, despite the fact that it has no history of toxicity or side effects. Because of this you can not buy beverages or food sweetened with stevia in the US. I have read that Diet Coke sold in Japan is sweetened with stevia. It might be in the interest of low-carb dieters in the US to put pressure on the FDA to approve stevia as a food so that we too could enjoy a natural no-calorie sweetener in our prepared foods and beverages.

P.S. One thing that is misleading about the packaging on Splenda is the "no calorie" or "zero calorie" claim. But this is not really deception, it is because the FDA doesn't require a product to "count" calories that are less than 5 per serving. A teaspoon of Splenda in the yellow box contains about 2 calories, but since it is less than 5 they call it "no calorie" because the FDA feels this is an insignificant amount. That is also why it says
"less than 1 gram of carbs", because the FDA doesn't require that they identify the amount of carbs if it less than 1 per serving. If you were going to use a lot of Splenda in one serving of something the amount of carbs would add up and could become significant, but not more than .5 grams of carbs per teaspoon (which is a lot better than the 4 grams per teaspoon for sugar). It would be nice if Splenda would put the exact numbers for calories, carbs, etc., but just imagine if they volunatarily put this information on the package. Competitors would not be required to do the same thing so they probably wouldn't. Then it would appear that Splenda was not as low in calories or carbs. If you want absolute accuracy in labeling then the FDA needs to be persuaded to put more stringent requirements on food labeling. Apparently, however, all you have to do is ask the company to provide the information according to this post I found:
http://www.featherish.com/postp5509.html

[Most of quote deleted for brevity!]

The main point of my post is that there are MANY sources of obfuscated carbs in our diet. For many, that there are carbs in so-called "zero calorie" foods is a major shock, as they tend to create concoctions believed to be carb-free when used for food preparation other than the implied "it doesn't matter, it's only a percentage of such a small number that it really doesn't matter" usage you shrug off as unimportant.

Something can be taken as deliberate when dealing with ANY branch of the food industry. Remember, they have lawyers who guide them to the hairy edge of what's currently "legal" so I wouldn't be so bold as to claim anything here is merely "accidental" as opposed to an extremely-well planned business plan to severely misrepresent things that will tend to hurt certain LC people who are naive to think this stuff is some form of virtually-unlimited-quantity godsend.

This bulk crap mentality has to go. Sweeteners don't have to be packed in sugar-like pourable powder form. There's a a far better substance to pack them in: it's called water or H2O. The result is something that is truly carb-free as opposed to something that is 90-plus percent pure carbs!

Face it, 0-carb sweeteners in soda, 0-carb sweeteners in little packets or pouring bottles. Except that there is a virtual night and day difference between products designed to fool us that they are identical when in fact they are essentially "poisoned" with carbs in alarming percentages. And the perpetrators of the crime hide behind government loopholes that claim that when measured in deminimus portions you get deminimus quantities is just fine because the laws allow it, etc.

All I know is that when I buy a hundred pack of yellow Splenda packets, I am getting about 50 grams for my money of nothing but carbs. I might want to make a fairly large cheesecake with a major percentage of that big box ripping apart lotsa those little packages, but I wouldn't wanna eat the results as it is clearly way out of line for LC. Yet, there are people doing this very thing in ignorance BECAUSE the sweetness in any old quantity of soda suggests this is fine to do.

In any case, I still come full circle back to the earlier thread: how are people getting any really no-carb sweetener to claim they are getting no insulin response when in fact there doesn't seem to me much in the way of preparing food that is sweet yet not containing an alarming amount of sugar for which the insulin response is actually no surprise?!

cjl (Remember, original Atkins cheesecake was sweetened with 90% cyclamates and 10% sacharrin and really no carbs!)