Modérateurs: Nutrimuscle-Conseils, Nutrimuscle-Diététique
par Eylo » 26 Oct 2011 09:29
par bobysixkiller » 26 Oct 2011 17:27
par Administrateur » 26 Oct 2011 17:44
) mais qui ne lisent pas le forum.
par m-57 » 26 Oct 2011 20:59
par chibani34 » 27 Oct 2011 10:39
par Hurleur » 27 Oct 2011 12:29
par m-57 » 27 Oct 2011 22:16
Hurleur a écrit:Partage là alors
)
par magixs » 1 Nov 2011 11:46
par Kazuya » 17 Déc 2011 13:20
par miaouss » 17 Déc 2011 19:42
The bottom line is the claims made on the internet are not consistent with the research on sucralose. Sucralose is the one of the safest sweeteners on the market today.
par miaouss » 17 Déc 2011 19:55
There has been a debate over the safety of a new sugar substitute on the market, Sucralose a.k.a. Splenda®. This paper is designed to help the reader better understand the arguments for and against this artificial sweetener.
Let’s look at some of the claims against sucralose first:
1. Shrunken thymus glands (up to 40% shrinkage)
2. Only 19 studies on the sweetener exist
3. Correlating sucralose to chlorinated pesticides
4. Absorption and metabolism of sucralose
5. High levels of contaminants
6. No post-approval monitoring
1. The problem with the claim that sucralose shrinks the thymus gland is when you read the study you find that “atrophy of the lymph follicles in the spleen and thymus was observed in the 50,000 ppm group.” The ones fed sucralose at 10,000 and 25,000 ppm did not show this effect. Also, only one toxicologist, Judith Bellin, has disputed the manufacturer’s claims that the effect seen at 50,000 ppm was due to starvation and not from the sucralose. The evidence suggests that starvation due to the high intake of sucralose by the laboratory animals was the real reason for the atrophy and not sucralose. To ingest the amount of sucralose that may have caused thymus shrinkage in a 176 lb male would have a 28-day intake of 240 grams of sucralose, which is equivalent to more than 20,000 individual Splenda™ packets/day for approximately one month. The amount needed according to research to have any immunological response was determined to be 750 mg/kg per day or 60 grams, which is the equivalent to more than 5,000 packets per day.
2. There are numerous claims on the internet that there were no safety studies done on sucralose prior to FDA approval. This is false. In the FDA Talk Paper of April 1, 1998 – T98-16, the paper says the following, “In determining the safety of sucralose, FDA reviewed data from more than 110 studies in humans and animals.” Since 1996, numerous studies have been conducted that continue to show safety.,
3. Correlation of sucralose to chlorinated pesticides is not accurate. A number of PhD chemists we spoke to strongly disagreed with the connection between pesticides and sucralose. Being an organochloric compound is not by itself toxic. Organochloric pesticides have an unstable bond (which makes it so toxic) to chlorine while sucralose’s bond is highly stable. Naturally occurring organochloride compounds exist such as seaweed. Sucralose is the only artificial sweetener ranked as "safe" by the consumer advocacy group Center for Science in the Public Interest.
4. There is a claim that there is a high absorption of sucralose of up to 40%. To begin with, since sucralose is 600 times sweeter than sugar, far less needs to be used to gain the same sweetening effect so if absorption is even as high as claimed the amount is miniscule. Second, the preponderance of the literature suggests that sucralose is not absorbed readily in the gut. Some studies show less than a 4% passive absorption of sucralose in the G.I. tract and much of what has been absorbed is excreted in the urine and stool unchanged., Some argue that intestinal bacteria in the gut (mostly pathogenic) metabolize sucralose but according to Farhadi A, et al, “bacteria metabolized lactulose and acidified the media but did not metabolize sucralose or mannitol.”
5. The argument that high levels of contaminants were found in sucralose is also misleading. The contaminants found in sucralose are minute and no higher than found in stevia or other sweeteners’. After careful consideration and an unbiased review of the literature, sucralose was one of the safest and best choices available. The fact that sucralose is produced at an approximate purity of 98% and therefore the rest must be dangerous is conjecture also and a biased interpretation of the literature.
6. There are claims scattered on the Internet that there is no post approval monitoring. The Sucralose Toxicity Information Center, claims that “A possible problem with casecal enlargement and renal mineralization has been seen in post approval animal research.” (my italics) There are currently numerous ongoing studies around the world being published on research relating to the potential harmful effects of sucralose. This is another example of a misleading commentary. Baird IM, et al conducted a human study on different doses of sucralose and found no side effects after approval was granted.
The bottom line is the claims made on the internet are not consistent with the research on sucralose. Sucralose is the one of the safest sweeteners on the market today.
by Dr. Mark Schauss
