Because stevia may have a lowering effect on blood sugar, it may increase the effectiveness of insulin and oral medications used for the treatment of diabetes. Individuals who are taking medications for diabetes should talk to their doctors or pharmacists before using stevia. Blood sugar levels may need to be checked more often, as well.
It is thought that stevia may lower blood pressure by blocking calcium channels - the same way that certain high blood pressure drugs work. If stevia is taken with one of these drugs, blood pressure may become too low - a condition known as hypotension. Low blood pressure may not have any signs, but it may produce blurred vision, confusion, dizziness, or fainting. Calcium-channel blocking drugs include:
diltiazem (Cardizem, Dilacor) nifedipine (Adalat, Procardia) Norvasc Plendil verapamil (Calan, Isoptin, Verelan) Some interactions between herbal products and medications can be more severe than others. The best way for you to avoid harmful interactions is to tell your doctor and/or pharmacist what medications you are currently taking, including any over-the-counter products, vitamins, and herbals. For specific information on how stevia interacts with drugs, other herbals, and foods and the severity of those interactions, please use our Drug Interactions Checker to check for possible interactions.
Stevia belongs to the same family of plants that includes chrysanthemums, daisies, and ragweed. Individuals who are sensitive to any of these plants may also be sensitive to stevia.
Abudula R, Jeppesen PB, Rolfsen SE, Xiao J, Hermansen K. Rebaudioside A potently stimulates insulin secretion from isolated mouse islets: Studies on the dose-, glucose-, and calcium-dependency. Metabolism. 2004;53(10):1378-1381.
Anon: Stevia. In: DerMarderosian A, Beutler JA, eds. Facts and Comparisons: The Review of Natural Products. St. Louis, MO, Facts and Comparisons. September 1999.
Blumenthal M. AHPA petitions FDA for approval of stevia leaf sweetener. HerbalGram. Winter 1992;26:22.
Blumenthal M. FDA lifts import ban on stevia: herb can be imported only as a dietary supplement; future use as a sweetener still unclear. HerbalGram. Fall 1995;35:17.
Braguini WL, Gomes MA, de Oliveira BH, Carnieri EG, Rocha ME, de Oliveira MB. Activity of isosteviol lactone on mitochondrial metabolism. Toxicology Letters. 2003;143(1):83-92.
Chan P, Xu DY, Liu JC, et al. The effect of stevioside on blood pressure and plasma catecholamines in spontaneously hypertensive rats. Life Sciences. 1998;63(19):1679-1684.
Chan P, Tomlinson B, Chen YJ, Liu JC, Hsieh MH, Cheng JT. A double-blind placebo-controlled study of the effectiveness and tolerability of oral stevioside in human hypertension. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. 2000;50(3):215-220.
Columbus M. The cultivation of stevia, "nature's sweetener". Ministry of Agriculture and Food. The Government of Ontario, Canada. May 1997. Available at: http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/crops/facts/stevia.htm. Accessed April 17, 2003.
Curi R, Alvarez M, Bazotte RB, Botion LM, Godoy JL, Bracht A. Effect of Stevia rebaudiana on glucose tolerance in normal adult humans. Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research. 1986;19(6):771-774.
Gardana C, Simonetti P, Canzi E, Zanchi R, Pietta P. Metabolism of stevioside and rebaudioside A from Stevia rebaudiana extracts by human microflora. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2003;51(22):6618-6622.
Geuns JM. Stevioside. Phytochemistry. 2003;64(5):913-921.
Goettemoeller J, Ching A. Seed germination in Stevia rebaudiana. In: Janick J (ed.), Perspectives on new crops and new uses. Alexandria, VA; ASHS Press: 1999.
Gregersen S, Jeppesen PB, Holst JJ, Hermansen K. Antihyperglycemic effects of stevioside in type 2 diabetic subjects. Metabolism. 2004;53(1):73-76.
Hsieh MH, Chan P, Sue YM, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of oral stevioside in patients with mild essential hypertension: a two-year, randomized, placebo-controlled study. Clinical Therapeutics. 2003;25(11):2797-2808.
Hsu YH, Liu JC, Kao PF, Lee CN, Chen YJ, Hsieh MH, Chan P. Antihypertensive effect of stevioside in different strains of hypertensive rats. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi (Taipei). 2002;65(1):1-6.
H�bler MO, Bracht A, Kelmer-Bracht AM. Influence of stevioside on hepatic glycogen levels in fasted rats. Research Communications in Chemistry, Pathology and Pharmacology. 1994;84(1):111-118.
Jeppesen PB, Gregersen S, Poulsen CR, Hermansen K. Stevioside acts directly on pancreatic beta cells to secrete insulin: actions independent of cyclic adenosine monophosphate and adenosine triphosphate-sensitive K+-channel activity. Metabolism, 2000;49(2):208-214.
Jeppesen PB, Gregersen S, Rolfsen SE, et al. Antihyperglycemic and blood pressure-reducing effects of stevioside in the diabetic Goto-Kakizaki rat. Metabolism. 2003;52(3):372-378.
Jeppesen PB, Gregersen S, Rolfsen SE, et al. Antihyperglycemic and blood pressure-reducing effects of stevioside in the diabetic Goto-Kakizaki rat. Metabolism. 2003;52(3):372-378.
Kinghorn AD, Soejarto DD, Nanayakkara NP, et al. A phytochemical screening procedure for sweet ent-kaurene glycosides in the genus stevia. Journal of Natural Products. 1984;47(3):439-444.
Klongpanichpak S, Temcharoen P, Toskulkao C, Apibal S, Glinsukon T. Lack of mutagenicity of stevioside and steviol in Salmonella typhimurium TA 98 and TA 100. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand. 1997;80(Suppl 1):S121-S128.
Koyama E, Kitazawa K, Ohori Y, et al. In vitro metabolism of the glycosidic sweeteners, stevia mixture and enzymatically modified stevia in human intestinal microflora. Food Chemistry and Toxicology. 2003;41(3):359-374.
Koyama E, Sakai N, Ohori Y, et al. Absorption and metabolism of glycosidic sweeteners of stevia mixture and their aglycone, steviol, in rats and humans. Food Chemistry and Toxicology. 2003;41(6):875-883.
Lailerd N, Saengsirisuwan V, Sloniger JA, Toskulkao C, Henriksen EJ. Effects of stevioside on glucose transport activity in insulin-sensitive and insulin-resistant rat skeletal muscle. Metabolism. 2004;53(1):101-107.
Lee CN, Wong KL, Liu JC, Chen YJ, Cheng JT, Chan P. Inhibitory effect of stevioside on calcium influx to produce antihypertension. Planta Medica. 2001;67(9):796-799.
Liu JC, Kao PK, Chan P, et al. Mechanism of the antihypertensive effect of stevioside in anesthetized dogs. Pharmacology. 2003;67(1):14-20.
Liu JC, Kao PK, Chan P, et al. Mechanism of the antihypertensive effect of stevioside in anesthetized dogs. Pharmacology. 2003;67(1):14-20.
Matsui M, Matsui K, Kawasaki Y, et al. Evaluation of the genotoxicity of stevioside and steviol using six in vitro and one in vivo mutagenicity assays. Mutagenesis. 1996;11(6):573-579.
May, James A. The many benefits of stevia. Health Supplement Retailer. March 1996:60.
Melis MS, Sainati AR. Effect of calcium and verapamil on renal function of rats during treatment with stevioside. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 1991;33(3):257-262.
Melis MS. Chronic administration of aqueous extract of Stevia rebaudiana in rats: renal effects. Journal of Ethnopharmacology. 1995;47(3):129-134.
Oliveira-Filho RM, Uehara OA, Minetti CA, Valle LB. Chronic administration of aqueous extract of Stevia rebaudiana (Bert.) Bertoni in rats: endocrine effects. General Pharmacology. 1989;20(2):187-191.
Pezzuto JM, Compadre CM, Swanson SM, et al. Metabolically activated steviol, the aglycone of stevioside, is mutagenic. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, USA. 1985;82(8):2478-2482.
Raskovic A, Gavrilovic M, Jakovljevic V, Sabo J. Glucose concentration in the blood of intact and alloxan-treated mice after pretreatment with commercial preparations of Stevia rebaudiana (Bertoni). European Journal of Drug Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics. 2004;29(2):87-90.
Raskovic A, Jakovljevic V, Mikov M, Gavrilovic M. Joint effect of commercial preparations of Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni and sodium monoketocholate on glycemia in mice. European Journal of Drug Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics. 2004;29(2):83-86.
Sekihashi K, Saitoh H, Sasaki Y. Genotoxicity studies of stevia extract and steviol by the comet assay. [Article in Japanese] Journal of Toxicological Sciences. 2002;27(Suppl 1):1-8.
Soejarto DD, Kinghorn AD, Farnsworth NR. Potential sweetening agents of plant origin. III. Organoleptic evaluation of Stevia leaf herbarium samples for sweetness. Journal of Natural Products. 1982;45(5):590-599.
Temcharoen P, Suwannatrai M, Klongpanichpak S, Apibal S, Glinsukon T, Toskulkao C. Evaluation of the effect of steviol on chromosomal damage using micronucleus test in three laboratory animal species. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand. 2000;83(Suppl 1):S101-S108.
Terai T, Ren H, Mori G, Yamaguchi Y, Hayashi T. Mutagenicity of steviol and its oxidative derivatives in Salmonella typhimurium TM677. Chemical and Pharmaceutical Bulletin (Tokyo). 2002;50(7):1007-1010.
Tomita T, Sato N, Arai T, et al. Bactericidal activity of a fermented hot-water extract from Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni towards enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli O157:H7 and other food-borne pathogenic bacteria. Microbiology and Immunology. 1997;41(12):1005-1009.
Toskulkao C, Chaturat L, Temcharoen P, Glinsukon T. Acute toxicity of stevioside, a natural sweetener, and its metabolite, steviol, in several animal species. Drug and Chemical Toxicology. 1997;20(1-2):31-44.
Toskulkao C, Sutheerawatananon M, Wanichanon C, Saitongdee P, Suttajit M. Effects of stevioside and steviol on intestinal glucose absorption in hamsters. Journal of Nutritional Science and Vitaminology. (Tokyo) 1995;41(1):105-113.
Wasuntarawat C, Temcharoen P, Toskulkao C, Mungkornkarn P, Suttajit M, Glinsukon T. Developmental toxicity of steviol, a metabolite of stevioside, in the hamster. Drug and Chemical Toxicology. 1998;21(2):207-222.
Wong KL, Chan P, Yang HY, et al. Isosteviol acts on potassium channels to relax isolated aortic strips of Wistar rat. Life Sciences. 2004;74(19):2379-2387.
Wong KL, Yang HY, Chan P, et al. Isosteviol as a potassium channel opener to lower intracellular calcium concentrations in cultured aortic smooth muscle cells. Planta Medica. 2004;70(2):108-112.
Yodyingyuad V, Bunyawong S. Effect of stevioside on growth and reproduction. Human Reproduction. 1991;6(1):158-165.
-------------------- Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Remember Iam not a Doctor Just someone struggling like you with Tick Borne Diseases.
treepatrol
Honored Contributor (10K+ posts)
Member # 4117
posted
STEVIA: THE GREEN STUFF
Remember that commercial that actress/songstress Cher did a few years ago pouting and touting her preference for "The Blue Stuff", aspartame (NutraSweet) artificial sweetener in the little blue packets, over "The Pink Stuff", saccharin artificial sweetener in the little pink packets and "The White Stuff", good old table sugar in the little white packets? Now there's a new (old) kid on the sweetener block to add to the little colored-packet collection: The Green Stuff, the one in the little green packets. Its name is Stevia Rebaudiana Bertoni. A big name with a big claim: 300-400 times sweeter than sugar and not artificial anything. Stevia is 100% Mother Nature in the form of a green herb plant of the Aster/Chrysanthemum family, the leaves of which yield its naturally-occurring sweet substance, glycoside, or stevioside. Best of all, it has been shown in numerous research studies to have no ill effects on the human body. In fact, in China, Stevia is also used to aid digestion, lose weight and even stimulate the appetite. It is also reported that Stevia powder heals external skin sores while drinking Stevia tea reduces mouth sores and improve oral health. And if that wasn't enough, Stevia cooks, bakes, sprinkles, and tastes, amazingly like real sugar, maybe even better.
SOME NOT SO-SWEET HISTORY: In the quest for an alternative sweetener that could taste like sugar, be calorie-free and free of disease-causing potential (obesity, heart disease, diabetes, tooth decay, etc), starting back in 1897 chemists created saccharine-based artificial sweeteners. But, because of their bitter aftertaste, they weren't very popular and really didn't catch on until much later in the century during the World Wars when sugar supplies were rationed.
In 1937, sodium/calcium cyclamate-type artificial sweeteners were developed and also used as sugar replacements during WWII. However, a few laboratory studies on cyclamates turned up cancerous tumors in laboratory mice and thus the cyclamates were banned by the FDA in 1970. Because of the cyclamate ban, saccharin became the reigning artificial sweetener in the commercial market. At the time they were a boon to diabetics and others who couldn't use real sugar. However, further research on saccharin showed some questionable cancer findings in laboratory mice and the FDA proposed a ban in 1970. But, because of the huge public outcry against the ban, the U.S. Congress opposed the ban and saccharin is still available on supermarket shelves everywhere although it carries a consumer health warning label on its package.
Then in the early 1980's, it seemed everyone's dreams were answered with the creation of an aspartame-type artificial sweetener, marketed commercially as NutraSweet. Because it was derived from a protein that was metabolized by the human body much the same as other "naturally" occurring proteins like meat, cheese, fish, etc., aspartame/Nutrasweet was thought to be considered safe for human consumption. Aspartame was relatively comparable in taste to real sugar and didn't have the bitter aftertaste that the cyclamates and saccharin did. It also didn't have the cancer causing potential its predecessors had. Later, however, it did come to public light, much through trial and error, that aspartame causes significant neurological symptoms in the form of headaches, brain lesions, insomnia, severe mood swings from low-grade depression to rage, short-term memory problems, numbness and tingling in extremities, ringing in the ears, and damage to developing fetal nervous and renal systems. Not quite the answer to our dreams. More like the door to our worst nightmares.
Where did NutraSweet come from? Aspartame/NutraSweet, a "non-nutritive sweetener", a DNA derivative, was created by combining two amino (protein) acids. According to author Alex Constantine in Psychic Dictatorship in the USA, aspartame/Nutra-Sweet was once listed on the United States Department of Defense's list of possible biochemical warfare agents worthy of study, presumably, for its psyche and neuro-altering effects. Just what you wanted in your morning coffee or your diet cola right? During the DOD's prelimiary studies of aspartame, clinical researchers noted the chemical's strong sweetness. After the failed DOD proposal to the United States Congress for permission to use aspartame in biochemical warfare experiments, the Monsanto Corporation bought the patent from its then manufacturer, G.D. Searle Company, and began to develop aspartame for its "sweeter" possibilities, i.e., an alternative to saccharin. However, its neurological/renal causing possibilities remained on the other side of the aspartame/NutraSweet coin and today it is at the top of a pregnant woman's list of "Foods To Avoid" because of its ability to damage the developing fetal neurological system.
Another artificial sweetener entered the scene in 1988, acesulfame potassium, or acesulfame-K, marketed commercially as Sunette. Ace-K is a tolerably sweet, with a slight bitter aftertaste, about 200 times sweeter than sugar, artificial sweetener. To date, all research studies have not turned up any cancer, neurological or other adverse health effects in laboratory animals. Acesulfame-K was given the FDA stamp of approval in 1991.
ENTER THE GREEN STUFF: Stevia Rabaudiana Bertoni (its full name in the plant world) has been around for a little over 120 years, used by the Guarani Indians in Paraguay for centuries. In 1887, Antonio Bertoni, an American scientist, noted that the native Indians of Paraguay would grind up a particular herb and use it to sweeten tea.
Fifty-one years later in 1931, two French chemists, Bridel and Lavielle worked to try and perfect the extraction process of making a sweetener from the leaves of the Stevia plant. Their work resulted in the creation of a white, crystalline substance they named stevioside which, they found, was many times sweeter than regular table sugar.
Then, in 1971, a Chinese doctor, Dr. Tei-Fu-Chen sought to refine the processing of Stevia leaves even further and instituted an old Chinese method of herbal processing using alcohol to extract the sweetness from Stevia leaves. It was this latter "Oriental" process that removed the green color from the substance along with the bitter aftertaste that original processing attempts did not.
Although Stevia has been in use in Asia and Europe for years, it wasn't until the last few years that Stevia really started to catch on in American nutritional consciousness as a healthy alternative sweetener to sugar. Stevia has no calcium cyclamate, no saccharin, no aspartame, and no calories. It is safe for diabetics as it does not affect blood sugar levels; it does not have the neurological or renal side effects of NutraSweet; and it does not cause cancer or other toxic side effects in laboratory animals. But unlike most things that are healthy and calorie-free, Stevia actually has a pleasantly sweet taste. Purchased presently in health food stores, under the name Stevia Extract, it comes in a liquid or powdered form, or in individual packets. And because it is so sweet, just a little Stevia goes a long, long way. Just �1/2 packet in a cup of coffee or tea, sprinkled over fruit, or cereal and you'll think you've loaded it with a few tablespoons of sugar! Unlike the artificial sweeteners saccharin and aspartame, Stevia is stable in hot and cold foods and can be used successfully as a sugar replacement in recipes.
With all this good news about Stevia, is there a down side? That depends on whom you ask. To date, the United States' FDA has not approved it as a "sweetener" although they have approved it as "dietary supplement". In contrast, Canada, South America, Japan and China use Stevia extensively as a sweetener in everything from soft drinks to candy, to desserts. The Coca-Cola company manufactures Diet Coke in Canada and Japan sweetened with Stevia and not aspartame/NutraSweet like its American Diet Coke counterpart.
Why won't the FDA approve Stevia as a sweetener? Citing preliminary research studies performed in 1985-1987 which apparently showed some ability of the active ingredients in Stevia to be "mutagenic", i.e. capable of turning into, Salmonella bacteria, the FDA ruled that Stevia can only be used as a "supplement" rather than a food additive. However, further studies of Stevia cast doubt on those original studies as whether the results were applicable to human consumption, and therefore flawed research. Despite the latest research findings that contradict those earlier research findings on Stevia, the FDA's original ruling still stands. An ironic ruling, as research studies had long-since established the cancer-causing properties of saccharin and the neurological and renal disease causing properties of aspartame, studies which have been apparently ignored in light of the fact that both artificial sweeteners are sanctioned by the FDA for public consumption. In addition, the ban against calcium and sodium cyclamates may soon lift making them available on the commercial market again.
To further illustrate the FDA's apparent double standards towards Stevia versus other artificial sweeteners, in 1991, the National Institutes of Health, a governmental cousin to the FDA, published a bibliography titled Adverse Effects of Aspartame which cites nearly 170 medical/health reasons to avoid aspartame like the plaque. Yet, the FDA continues to endorse it and not Stevia. Because of the FDA's awkward ruling on the sale of Stevia in this country, U.S. manufacturers continue to carefully advertise the substance as a dietary supplement rather than a sweetener. However, savvy, health-conscious consumers are beginning to "supplement" their tea, coffee, and recipes with Stevia in growing numbers and loving every sweet minute.
If cost is a factor in your choice of sweeteners, you'll find Stevia to be just about as expensive as it is sweet and non-detrimental to your health. Stevia Extract, 100 packet-size, purchased at a discount vitamin supplement outlet costs about $8.00. That's about twice as much as a comparable amount of aspartame-type sweetener and about three times as much as saccharin-type sweetener. But, the up side of the added cost of Stevia is that your health no longer has to pay the price to enjoy a little sweetness in life.
-------------------- Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Remember Iam not a Doctor Just someone struggling like you with Tick Borne Diseases.
The United States can't seem to get enough of sucralose, the no-calorie artificial sweetener sold under the brand name Splenda.
However, the demand for this sweetener has forced Tate & Lyle (the company that makes sucralose) to ration shipments of it, which is affecting production for both small and large companies who are dependent on sucralose for business. Some companies are even willing to hold off on making certain products until the supply of sucralose has been replenished.
The growing public interest in this sweetener has been a reflection on the fact that many Americans are partaking in low-carb diets, not to mention have a constant desire to cut calories.
Manufacturers have also taken an interest in sucralose because it:
Has at least twice the shelf life of aspartame, the key ingredient found in Equal Does not react to heat and can easily be used in baking and in products that use high temperatures during their manufacture The interest in low-carb dieting, in conjunction with the fame of sucralose among manufacturers, has led to an abundance of artificially sweetened food products on the market. In fact, the number of products containing sucralose as a key ingredient has more than doubled this past year from 573 to 1,330. And, with 22 percent of Americans striving to eat less sugar, the market for artificial sweeteners has grown significantly, though the success of sucralose has far surpassed its competitors:
Equal's share of the American tabletop sweetener market has dropped from 23.7 percent to 19.4 percent Sweet'N Low's share declined from 17.8 percent to 15.6 percent Splenda's share has risen from 37.3 percent to 48.8 percent As the success of Splenda/sucralose mounts, competitors are determined to devise ways to make their sweeteners more appealing to consumers. Merisant, the maker of Equal, has been focused on doing a better job marketing and packaging their product, and have even considered creating different flavors of Equal.
You probably recall an article I posted regarding the overwhelming popularity of Splenda/sucralose in processed foods that is preventing the product's manufacturer (Tate & Lyle) from taking on new customers and limiting its supply to old ones.
Well, it seems that many companies who regularly use sucralose for business are willing to wait (and temporarily delay the debut of new soft drinks that will only poison your health) until the supply of the artificial sweetener has been stocked back up. What's worse, the overwhelming demand for the product is due in large part to those people who are Splenda-dependent -- people who feel using this artificial sweetener is far better for their health and weight. Not true!
Folks, if you are consuming Splenda because you hink it is a safe alternative to sugar or other artificial sweeteners, then you may be in for a big surprise. Research in animals has shown that consuming sucralose comes hand-in-hand with a plethora of health problems.
Splenda's Sour Side Effects
Shrunken thymus glands (up to 40 percent shrinkage) Enlarged liver and kidneys Atrophy of lymph follicles in the spleen and thymus Reduced growth rate Decreased red blood cell count Diarrhea If this list is not convincing enough for you, I highly recommend reading some of my other concerns regarding this potentially toxic no-calorie sweetener.
But perhaps the most revealing and powerful way to learn the dangerous truth about Splenda is to read someone's personal experience with it. Nearly every month we receive a report from someone who has had an adverse reaction to Splenda; you can see many of these reports posted on my site. The fact is, many people are uneducated about the negative effects this product can have on your health and body and find out only after they experience a negative reaction.
If dramatically reducing or eliminating your intake of sweets, whether it is sugar or artificial sweeteners like Splenda, feels close to "impossible" for you, I strongly urge you to read my book, TOTAL HEALTH Program. This literature presents my entire dietary program that has helped many tens of thousands of patients, and one of the key reasons this book has received such widespread critical acclaim is its strong focus on eliminating unhealthy dietary cravings and addictions like "sweet cravings."
Unlike sucralose and other artificial sweeteners that have been cited for dangerous toxicities, stevia is a natural alternative that's ideal for diabetics, those watching their weight and anyone interested in maintaining their health by avoiding sugar. Stevia can be used in appetizers, beverages, soups, salads, vegetables, and desserts -- virtually anything! It is, hands down, the best alternative to sugar you will ever taste.
WARNING: I want to emphasize that if you have insulin issues, I recommend that you avoid sweeteners all together including stevia, as they all can worsen the problem. But for everyone else, if you are going to sweeten your foods and beverages anyway, I strongly encourage you to do so with stevia.
Related Articles:
12 Questions You Need to Have Answered Before You Eat Splenda
Splenda Celebrates Fifth Anniversary
Beware of Splenda's Latest Marketing Ploy
Is Splenda Making You Sick? Find Out Some Common Reaction Symptoms
Splenda's Dangers: One Man's Personal Story That You Should Know
Splenda Compared to a "Biochemical Warfare Agent"--See One Woman's Shocking Photos
Pure xylitol is a white crystalline substance that looks and tastes like sugar. On food labels, xylitol is classified broadly as a carbohydrate and more narrowly as a polyol. Because xylitol is only slowly absorbed and partially utilized, a reduced calorie claim is allowed: 2.4 calories per gram or 40% less than other carbohydrates.
Xylitol has been used in foods since the 1960's. It is a popular sweetener for the diabetic diet in some countries. In the U.S., xylitol is approved as a food additive in unlimited quantity for foods with special dietary purposes.
Over 25 years of testing in widely different conditions confirm that xylitol is the best sweetener for teeth. Xylitol use reduces tooth decay rates both in high-risk groups (high caries prevalence, poor nutrition, and poor oral hygiene) and in low risk groups (low caries incidence using all current prevention recommendations). Sugarfree chewing gums and candies made with xylitol as the principal sweetener have already received official endorsements from six national dental associations.
Why Use Xylitol?
Effective Studies using xylitol as either a sugar substitute or a small dietary addition have demonstrated a dramatic reduction in new tooth decay, along with arrest and even some reversal of existing dental caries. Xylitol provides additional protection that enhances all existing prevention methods. This xylitol effect is long-lasting and possibly permanent. Low decay rates persist even years after the trials have been completed.
Natural Xylitol is right here, inside, already. Our bodies produce up to 15 grams of xylitol from other food sources using established energy pathways. Xylitol is not a strange or artificial substance, but a normal part of everyday metabolism. Xylitol is widely distributed throughout nature in small amounts. Some of the best sources are fruits, berries, mushrooms lettuce, hardwoods, and corn cobs. One cup of raspberries contains less than one gram of xylitol. Chewing is a natural process and chewing gums provide some exercise lacking in a refined diet. If chewing is uncomfortable, xylitol mints or candies can also stimulate saliva, the natural tooth protector.
Safe In the amounts needed to prevent tooth decay (less than 15 grams per day), xylitol is safe for everyone.
Convenient Xylitol can be conveniently delivered to your teeth via chewing gum, tablets, or even candy. You can implement your xylitol program anywhere, anytime. It fits right in with the most frantic schedules. You don't need to change your normal routine to make room for xylitol.
Xylitol is a naturally occurring substance that is crystalline in form and looks and tastes like sugar. Xylitol is all natural, not artificial, and is a normal substance used in everyday metabolism. Our bodies produce up to 15 grams of xylitol each day. Found mostly in fruits and vegetables, xylitol is perfectly safe for human consumption and has been given the FDA's safest rating as a food additive. Because xylitol is absorbed slowly and only partially utilized by the body, it contains 40% less calories than other carbohydrates, about 2.4 calories per gram.
Over 2 decades of Clinical studies and use confirm that xylitol is effective in reducing dental decay and bacterial growth. Sugar free chewing gums and candies made with xylitol have received official endorsements from six national dental associations. Xylitol has also been found to have other substantial heath benefits and serves as a defense against sinus, ear, and upper respiratory infections.
In addition, xylitol serves as a popular sweetener for diabetics and people with hypoglycemia. It has a LOW GLYCEMIC INDEX (7) and has little effect on blood sugar levels, great for keeping net carbs low. Xylitol is recommended by dentists, medical doctors, periodontists, pediatricians and other heath professions and organization worldwide.
Xlear Inc. manufactures a variety of natural, heath-enhancing products based on pure xylitol. Xylitol based sweetener, Xylosweet� is a great alternative to sugar and can actually reduce the development of dental cavities in your mouth. Spry� Dental Defense System� products are sugar free and help you maintain good dental hygiene. Xlear� Nasal Wash flushes away pollutants, allergens, and bacteria that lead to upper respiratory infections in nasal passages. The regular usage of Xlear Nasal Wash, the Spry Dental Defense System, and Xylosweet Sweetener products can dramatically enhance your life and health.
-------------------- Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Remember Iam not a Doctor Just someone struggling like you with Tick Borne Diseases.
treepatrol
Honored Contributor (10K+ posts)
Member # 4117
posted
Nutrasweet Truth or Fiction CSPI Warns of Aspartame - Advocates Sucralose The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has warned that aspartame, the artificial sugar substitute in most diet drinks, may cause cancer as reported in a three-year Italian study that found links to lymphomas and leukemias . But the CSPI communication goes on to advocate use of another doubtful sweetener - sucralose - to get off aspartame. Sucralose, also sold under the Splenda brand name, has its own problems of toxicity and is by no means an innocuous replacement for aspartame.
Although the CSPI has - with a delay of several years - come out now with a warning against the use of aspartame, Betty Martini charges that its executive director, Michael Jacobson, should have had the courage to do so long ago. She says the information was available since the time of the aspartame approval through political pressure called in by Donald Rumsfeld, former CEO of aspartame manufacturer Searle and now defense secretary.
Diet soda, which generally is sweetened with aspartame, has been shown to be linked to an increased incidence of obesity by Sharon P. Fowler, MPH, and colleagues at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio in a recent study. While Fowler is quick to point out that the link does not prove causation, the facts showed that the more diet drinks a person consumed, the higher was the likelihood of being obese.
Why can't we encourage people to just overcome their sweet tooth?
Perhaps it would help, but of course there is no money in that. We have the sugar industry, the chemical sweetener manufacturers and the processed foods and drinks industry making sure that does not happen. But people do pay the bill - some with their lives, others with suffering and illness, others simply with obesity, and all of them with their weekly grocery bills, not to talk about hospital costs that hit every one of us. Great system and real great advice by CSPI, which says it is defending consumers...
Read the CSPI announcement and Betty Martini's comments to CSPI's Michael Jacobson here: ... Continue> page 2.
CSPI Warns of Aspartame - Advocates Sucralose The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has warned that aspartame, the artificial sugar substitute in most diet drinks, may cause cancer as reported in a three-year Italian study that found links to lymphomas and leukemias . But the CSPI communication goes on to advocate use of another doubtful sweetener - sucralose - to get off aspartame. Sucralose, also sold under the Splenda brand name, has its own problems of toxicity and is by no means an innocuous replacement for aspartame.
Although the CSPI has - with a delay of several years - come out now with a warning against the use of aspartame, Betty Martini charges that its executive director, Michael Jacobson, should have had the courage to do so long ago. She says the information was available since the time of the aspartame approval through political pressure called in by Donald Rumsfeld, former CEO of aspartame manufacturer Searle and now defense secretary.
Diet soda, which generally is sweetened with aspartame, has been shown to be linked to an increased incidence of obesity by Sharon P. Fowler, MPH, and colleagues at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio in a recent study. While Fowler is quick to point out that the link does not prove causation, the facts showed that the more diet drinks a person consumed, the higher was the likelihood of being obese.
Why can't we encourage people to just overcome their sweet tooth?
Perhaps it would help, but of course there is no money in that. We have the sugar industry, the chemical sweetener manufacturers and the processed foods and drinks industry making sure that does not happen. But people do pay the bill - some with their lives, others with suffering and illness, others simply with obesity, and all of them with their weekly grocery bills, not to talk about hospital costs that hit every one of us. Great system and real great advice by CSPI, which says it is defending consumers...
Read the CSPI announcement and Betty Martini's comments to CSPI's Michael Jacobson here: - - -
Center for Science in the Public Interest July 27, 2005
Aspartame: New Study Renews Cancer Concern, Says CSPI
Consumers & Manufacturers Should Switch to Sucralose Pending Thorough Government Safety Tests
The Food and Drug Administration should immediately review the safety of the artificial sweetener aspartame, and possibly ban it, in light of a new study published in the European Journal of Oncology. The study, conducted in Italy, found statistically significant increases in lymphomas and leukemias among female rats given aspartame. The smallest amount of aspartame (20 milligrams per kilogram of body weight) that caused a significant increase in cancer incidence is in the ballpark of what many people consume. The study also found equivocal results regarding brain tumors.
At a minimum, the government should conduct new animal studies of aspartame and encourage consumers and manufacturers that use artificial sweeteners to switch to sucralose, which CSPI considers to be the safest of the several artificial sweeteners on the market.
Aspartame, also sold as Equal and NutraSweet, is used in Diet Coke, Diet Pepsi, and thousands of other foods and is consumed by 200 million people in the United States and around the world, according to the industry's Calorie Control Council.
"The FDA immediately should ask the government's National Toxicology Program to conduct new animal studies to assess the cancer risk from aspartame. As a precautionary measure, in the several years it would take to design and conduct such studies, the FDA should consider ordering aspartame off the market," said CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson. "Despite several shortcomings in the new study, one notable plus is that it was designed and conducted independently. Virtually all of the previous research was sponsored by the makers of aspartame."
(In 1996, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported that the FDA repeatedly stopped the National Toxicology Program from conducting lifetime animal tests of aspartame.)
The authors of the Italian study call for "urgent re-examination of permissible exposure levels of [aspartame] in both food and beverages, especially to protect children."
CSPI has long urged that aspartame be better tested, but has not maintained that the artificial sweetener is harmful, except to some people in whom it causes headaches. The California Environmental Protection Agency has also called for further studies on aspartame.
For more information, contact:
Center for Science in the Public Interest 1875 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20009
phone 202.332.9110 fax 202.265.4954
From: "Dr. Betty Martini,D.Hum." Subject: Confession is good for the Soul: Michael Jacobson, CSPI, finally calls for possible Ban on Aspartame, but encourages the use of a chlorocarbon poison, Splenda.
Dear Michael,
Yes, indeed, confession is good for the soul. I have personally written you for years about the dangers of aspartame, and still have the letters. I've sent you indisputable evidence including the knowledge there is a 1038 page medical text on the toxin, completely documented, Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic, www.sunsentpress.com by Dr. H. J. Roberts. I've told you about Dr. Ralph Walton's research he showed on 60 Minutes with Dr. Olney, on scientific peer reviewed studies and funding. 92% of independent, unbiased studies show the problems aspartame causes. Still just like you admitted in this press release you've never said anything except it needs more testing. And right again where you say "But has not maintained that the artificial sweetener is harmful, except for some people in whom it causes headaches." Why, Michael, you had all the evidence years ago and in 1985 wrote your own damning report? You knew the gun was loaded. You've received volumes of information over the years not only from me but other Mission Possible activists and the public at large. And you've been on our web sites and read the material.
Yet, on Fox News you advocated the public use diet drinks even though a study by Sharon Fowler of the University of Texas proved once for all that obesity is linked to diet drinks. http://www.menstuff.org/issues/byissue/dietsoda.html She used 8 years of data and what was in Diet Coke and Diet Pepsi all these years - aspartame! And you knew it and you knew about the Italian study showing aspartame conclusively to be a carcinogen causing leukemia, lymphoma and malignant brain tumors.
In fact, you say in the press release below: "Aspartame, also sold as Equal and NutraSweet, is used in Diet Coke, Diet Pepsi, and thousands of other foods and is consumed by 200 million people in the United States and around the world" -- So I'll ask you again why you pushed diet drinks on Fox News. I hope they never interview you again. And as far as the diabetic epidemic, you know aspartame can precipitate diabetes, simulates and aggravates diabetic retinopathy and neuropathy, and interacts with insulin. You've been told for years and told what physician's books contained the information. And the reports are on the web sites you've been on.
Mission Possible International has been asking for a ban on aspartame for 14 years, and the physicians who are experts like Dr. Roberts long before that. Aren't you a little late? If you had spoken out when you knew about it over 20 years ago maybe it would not have murdered hundreds of thousands of people or even millions. But now that the Italian study is global news you can't protect aspartame any longer.
Now you encourage the use of a chlorocarbon poison, Splenda. And with all the publicity about its harmful effects don't tell me you didn't know. You couldn't research the toxin without finding out. And would you encourage it without researching it? Merisant has sued them, even though its the kettle calling the pot black. Both companies mislead the public. I like the fact, you say "industry's Calorie Control Council". Yes, the Calorie Control Council is a NutraSweet front group pushing the poison. You're really fessing up today!
Go to http://www.wnho.net and read the Lethal Science of Splenda and some of Dr. Mercola's articles on sucralose/Splenda. As it says in the first report: "Splenda/sucralose is simply chlorinated sugar; a chlorocarbon. Common chlorocarbon include carbon tetrachloride, trichlorethelene and methylene chloride, all deadly. Chlorine is nature's Doberman attack dog, a highly excitable, ferocious atomic element employed as a biocide in bleach, disinfectants, insecticide, WW1 poison gas and hydrochloric acid."
The report continues: "Sucralose is a molecule of sugar chemically manipulated to surrender three hydroxyl groups (hydrogen + oxygen) and replace them with three chlorine atoms. Natural sugar is a hydrocarbon built around 12 carbon atoms. When turned into Splenda it becomes a chlorocarbon, in the family of Chlorodane, Lindane and DDT."
Why not just say drink up on DDT-Lite!? The report tells us that when chlorine is chemically reacted into carbon-structured organic compounds to make chlorocarbons, the carbon and chlorine atoms bind to each other by mutually sharing electrons in their outer shells. This arrangement adversely affects human metabolism because our mitochondrial and cellular enzyme systems are designed to completely utilize organic molecules containing carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and other compatible nutrition elements.
"By this process chlorocarbons such as sucralose deliver chlorine directly into our cells through normal metabolization. This makes them effective insecticides and preservatives. Preservatives must kill anything alive to prevent bacterial decomposition."
"In test animals Splenda produced swollen livers, as do all chlorocarbon poisons, and also calcified the kidneys of test animals in toxicity studies. The brain and nervous system are highly subject to metabolic toxicities and solvency damages by these chemicals. Their high solvency attacks the human nervous system and many other body systems including genetics and the immune function. Thus, chlorocarbon poisoning an cause cancer, birth defects, and immune system destruction. These are well known effects of Dioxin and PCBs which are known deadly chlorocarbons."
Remember that aspartame is a chemical hypersensitization agent so when people get off aspartame and on to Splenda they can react. And now we are getting those reports from seizures to tachycardia to horrible rashes. One of Dr. Mercola's reports on www.wnho.net shows a picture of a Splenda reaction.
We're glad you're finally calling for a ban on aspartame but while you're fessing up be sure to tell people you've known aspartame was deadly for two decades and refused to speak out.
Dr. Betty Martini, Founder, Mission Possible International, 9270 River Club Parkway, Duluth, Georgia 30097 770 242-2599 http://www.wnho.net and http://www.dorway.com
-------------------- Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Remember Iam not a Doctor Just someone struggling like you with Tick Borne Diseases.
Areneli
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 6740
posted
You write so many beautiful things about Stevia but pay attention to what Treepatrol wrote about Stevia causing cancer in lab animals.
Perhaps small quantities are OK but this is not as benign and wonderful substance as many of you believe.
[ 24. September 2005, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: Areneli ]
Posts: 1538 | From Planet Earth | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
robi
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 5547
posted
quote:Originally posted by Areneli: but pay attention to what Treepatrol wrote about Stevia causing cancer in lab animals.
Can you quote this I can"t find it ...... thanks.
robi
-------------------- Now, since I put reality on the back burner, my days are jam-packed and fun-filled. ..........lily tomlin as 'trudy' Posts: 2503 | From here | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
riversinger
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 4851
posted
Areneli, are you sure it wasn't talking about cancer in relationship to aspartame, a completely different substance? If it was stevia, could you please point it out? I haven't seen any studies indicating cancer causing problems.
Areneli
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 6740
posted
I have read about Stevia and cancer from a reputable source. Right now it is hard for me to recall exactly where it was.
Anyway it is not such a big issue. Fried bacon is also carcinogenic. Event kitchen salt looks bad by some researchers and may cause cancer. I use myself Stevia in moderation.
Posts: 1538 | From Planet Earth | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have been using stevia for many years with no side effects. I like the taste in anything but coffee, for some reason it makes coffee taste real bad but I gave up coffee anyway since I didn't think if had any nutritional value. While I used splenda for a short time I developed a terrible rash on my neck which I attributed to Lyme but it miraculously disappeared as soon as I stopped using it. I believe what treepatrol posted about splenda. Also for hurtinggramma, have you tried digestive enzymes? I used to have gas all the time and some time is was very painful. I haven't made a peep since using them. My husband is thrilled too,LOL!
DawnE
Posts: 158 | From Great Neck, New York | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
some who like it allot say that certain brands or proccessing counts..and how it is used. the green whole herb being much different than the powdwe and the tincture.
I have not tried it yet, I stick with unprocessed maple syrup (great in coffee) and molasses, blackstrap and sorgum (all of which are full of high potency minerals)..or raw honey (local).. and keep usage low as possible. These can replace all uses of white sugar and all provide good things for the body.
Mo
Posts: 8337 | From the other shore | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
treepatrol
Honored Contributor (10K+ posts)
Member # 4117
posted
-------------------- Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Remember Iam not a Doctor Just someone struggling like you with Tick Borne Diseases.
The Lyme Disease Network is a non-profit organization funded by individual donations. If you would like to support the Network and the LymeNet system of Web services, please send your donations to:
The
Lyme Disease Network of New Jersey 907 Pebble Creek Court,
Pennington,
NJ08534USA http://www.lymenet.org/
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[bonk]](graemlins/bonk.gif)
Does that help ![[woohoo]](graemlins/woohoo.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[shake]](graemlins/shake.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic