ChatterBank0 min ago
Food for thought
I'm a bit partial to a bit of apple crumble and I like to make my own
However I'm aware that l need to shed a few pounds
Now then , i've got my Flour - i've got my low calorie sweetner - i've got my apples .
Where the heck is my low fat spread , suitable for baking OR my geniunely low fat margarine ?
Why haven't scientist come up with the answer yet - i'ts not rocket science , is it ?
Or is it ?
However I'm aware that l need to shed a few pounds
Now then , i've got my Flour - i've got my low calorie sweetner - i've got my apples .
Where the heck is my low fat spread , suitable for baking OR my geniunely low fat margarine ?
Why haven't scientist come up with the answer yet - i'ts not rocket science , is it ?
Or is it ?
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Bazile. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Scientists, or at least those working for Proctor & Gamble, have developed a calorie free fat. It is a sucrose polyester called Olestra.
Nasty stuff. Read about it here:
http://www.cspinet.org/olestra/11cons.html
Nasty stuff. Read about it here:
http://www.cspinet.org/olestra/11cons.html
I'm not certain, but I think that amongst the lowest fat spreads on the market in the UK at the moment are Flora Diet and Flora Pro Active Extra Light. They both contain 23% fat, which is well below the minimum requirement of 41% for a spread to be called "low fat".
If I remember rightly, neither of these products is recommended for frying or baking. The reason for this is that the products contain high quantities of water to increase their volume. If the water, was not included, they would be too dense to do anything with and they'd resemble a solid block of hard fat.
Food technologists have been trying for years to get around the need to add water to the product but they've found that nothing else acceptable will do the job. They simply can't process very low-fat spreads without water. Until they can substitute something else for the water, very low fat spreads will never be suitable for baking or frying. So you could well regard it as rocket science.
If I remember rightly, neither of these products is recommended for frying or baking. The reason for this is that the products contain high quantities of water to increase their volume. If the water, was not included, they would be too dense to do anything with and they'd resemble a solid block of hard fat.
Food technologists have been trying for years to get around the need to add water to the product but they've found that nothing else acceptable will do the job. They simply can't process very low-fat spreads without water. Until they can substitute something else for the water, very low fat spreads will never be suitable for baking or frying. So you could well regard it as rocket science.
Olestra is a disgusting stuff that has widespread metabolic effects in the mammalian body. Fortunately, the American FDA has slowed down the usage of the fat substitute in the USA by forcing manufacturers to declare the potential side-effects of Olestra on packaging. They're pretty unsavoury.
It's a shame they didn't do the same for Sucralose (Splenda) which still remains a contentious sugar substitute. The whole concept of replacing three hydroxyl groups on the sugar molecule with three chlorine groups is something that many find quite alarming.
http://www.splendaexposed.com/articles/2005/02 /weird_science_h.html
http://www.truthaboutsplenda.com/
It's a shame they didn't do the same for Sucralose (Splenda) which still remains a contentious sugar substitute. The whole concept of replacing three hydroxyl groups on the sugar molecule with three chlorine groups is something that many find quite alarming.
http://www.splendaexposed.com/articles/2005/02 /weird_science_h.html
http://www.truthaboutsplenda.com/
Well Prof - I'll go to the foot of our stairs - i'm shocked !!!!
I had no idea of the dangers of these sweetners .
I've just checked my cupboard - and yes all the low calorie sweetners and drinks have got aspartame in them .
Are there any sweetners in use which are not considered bad for you , prof ?
I had no idea of the dangers of these sweetners .
I've just checked my cupboard - and yes all the low calorie sweetners and drinks have got aspartame in them .
Are there any sweetners in use which are not considered bad for you , prof ?
Most sweeteners on the market nowadays are pretty harmless. Some people react to specific sweeteners and find they cannot tolerate them, but that's the case with many foods and additives nowadays.
Animal studies have demonstrated alarming toxicity profiles for sweeteners, but they usually only occur when huge quantities of the sweetener is added to their diet or via other methods. These conditions are unnatural to say the least, but they do fall within established toxicological methods and are necessary before a product can be licenced for use.
The two exceptions over this to my mind are Sucralose, which is marketed as Splenda, and Cyclamates .
Cyclamates were banned in the UK in 1969 due to suspected link with bladder cancer and testicular atrophy. Other countries acted in a similar manner. However in 1996, Cyclamates were allowed covertly back into food products on the basis that much of the toxicological work had not been adequately reproduced by other scientists.
You won't find Cyclamates included in all products as their use has never really returned to what it was before they were banned. There is one supermarket group ( not a big-player) that has included Cyclamates in some of it's own-brand products, such as soft-drinks and squash.
If you google cyclamates, confinining yourself to UK pages, you can judge the evidence youself. No doubt you'll come across the pages from the Cyclamate promotional lobbyists too. You should come across the supermarket name without too much difficulty.
Aspartame, Acesulfame-K, Saccharin and the others are mostly OK and have little adverse effects in humans. They are not related to Sucralose.
Animal studies have demonstrated alarming toxicity profiles for sweeteners, but they usually only occur when huge quantities of the sweetener is added to their diet or via other methods. These conditions are unnatural to say the least, but they do fall within established toxicological methods and are necessary before a product can be licenced for use.
The two exceptions over this to my mind are Sucralose, which is marketed as Splenda, and Cyclamates .
Cyclamates were banned in the UK in 1969 due to suspected link with bladder cancer and testicular atrophy. Other countries acted in a similar manner. However in 1996, Cyclamates were allowed covertly back into food products on the basis that much of the toxicological work had not been adequately reproduced by other scientists.
You won't find Cyclamates included in all products as their use has never really returned to what it was before they were banned. There is one supermarket group ( not a big-player) that has included Cyclamates in some of it's own-brand products, such as soft-drinks and squash.
If you google cyclamates, confinining yourself to UK pages, you can judge the evidence youself. No doubt you'll come across the pages from the Cyclamate promotional lobbyists too. You should come across the supermarket name without too much difficulty.
Aspartame, Acesulfame-K, Saccharin and the others are mostly OK and have little adverse effects in humans. They are not related to Sucralose.
Hi theprof - have you found any studies published in reputable peer-reviewed journals that actually indicate that sucralose is dangerous to human or animal health? All I can find are websites and books for sale, and nothing that I would ever trust to be scientifically accurate or reliable.
I do not use splenda myself, but my parents do all the time, and I really do want to know how safe it is. I just find it so strange that I am unable to find any useful information when I search the journals. If you have any references, I would be very grateful.
I do not use splenda myself, but my parents do all the time, and I really do want to know how safe it is. I just find it so strange that I am unable to find any useful information when I search the journals. If you have any references, I would be very grateful.
Hi drestie
I do have my own opinion regarding the safety of Splenda, but the last thing I'd want to do would be to colour your own opinion. So it might be best for you to see what I'm getting at yourself.
I'm not clear as to what extent you can access journals, but there is scientific opinion available via the EBSCO Academic Search Premier database, the Knovel Library (a restricted service will not come up with all the references) and others that you should be able to find via an online metasearch in most university libraries. You can access these at virtually all academic institutions although Knovel may be a problem in some of the financially disadvantaged institutions. Just type Sucralose into the search boxes.
Providing you with links to these sites may be useless if you're not at uni because unless your IP address is within an authorised range, your PC will not be allowed to connect to the databases by the uni servers. Usernames and passwords would also be needed. If you're an ATHENS user or can connect remotely, it's a different story.
A lot of the stuff you'll find is supportive of Sucralose but some does cast doubt on on its safety.
I do have my own opinion regarding the safety of Splenda, but the last thing I'd want to do would be to colour your own opinion. So it might be best for you to see what I'm getting at yourself.
I'm not clear as to what extent you can access journals, but there is scientific opinion available via the EBSCO Academic Search Premier database, the Knovel Library (a restricted service will not come up with all the references) and others that you should be able to find via an online metasearch in most university libraries. You can access these at virtually all academic institutions although Knovel may be a problem in some of the financially disadvantaged institutions. Just type Sucralose into the search boxes.
Providing you with links to these sites may be useless if you're not at uni because unless your IP address is within an authorised range, your PC will not be allowed to connect to the databases by the uni servers. Usernames and passwords would also be needed. If you're an ATHENS user or can connect remotely, it's a different story.
A lot of the stuff you'll find is supportive of Sucralose but some does cast doubt on on its safety.
Thanks, theprof. I am at a major research university in the states, but I have never heard of Knovel. We definitely have EBSCO access, as well as Web of Science. Will go check it out right now. If you have actual journal references, I can access most major journals online, unless the papers are very old, in which case we may have the print versions. I will go look for Knovel now.... :)
Hi Prof
I'm a bit confused now
You have stated that Aspartame , Acesulfame-K , Saccharin and the others are mostly ok .
However having gone into the link , with your post of 04/01/07 - there is a Dr Janet Starr , who seems to be saying that Aspartame is not safe
I would very much appreciate your further advices
Thank You
I'm a bit confused now
You have stated that Aspartame , Acesulfame-K , Saccharin and the others are mostly ok .
However having gone into the link , with your post of 04/01/07 - there is a Dr Janet Starr , who seems to be saying that Aspartame is not safe
I would very much appreciate your further advices
Thank You
Hi Bazile
I don't blame you for being confused. I think you need to look at this with considerable objectivity and review the evidence for yourself.
Personally, I don't think that there is a 100% safe artificial sweetener out there. This is my view based on years of reviewing peer-reviewed papers and articles in journals and textbooks. However, it's possible that my own opinions regarding these sweeteners are wrong and furthermore, it would be wrong of me to attempt to influence the opinion of others. I'm a recognised authority in Biochemistry and I also dabble in Pharmacology, but believe me, there are scientists out there who are far better qualified and experienced in this field than I am.
Aspartame, Saccharin, Acesulfame-K and some other rarely encountered sweeteners have been on the market for years. The older generation tend to have an aversion to Saccharin due to the aftertaste and its forced use during WWII. This led to the development of Aspartame and Acesulfame-K, both of which have a lessened aftertaste. However, the common factor with all of these three is that they've been available for years, have undergone extensive toxicity testing and as long as they're not used in excess, they appear to be generally OK.
(continued)
I don't blame you for being confused. I think you need to look at this with considerable objectivity and review the evidence for yourself.
Personally, I don't think that there is a 100% safe artificial sweetener out there. This is my view based on years of reviewing peer-reviewed papers and articles in journals and textbooks. However, it's possible that my own opinions regarding these sweeteners are wrong and furthermore, it would be wrong of me to attempt to influence the opinion of others. I'm a recognised authority in Biochemistry and I also dabble in Pharmacology, but believe me, there are scientists out there who are far better qualified and experienced in this field than I am.
Aspartame, Saccharin, Acesulfame-K and some other rarely encountered sweeteners have been on the market for years. The older generation tend to have an aversion to Saccharin due to the aftertaste and its forced use during WWII. This led to the development of Aspartame and Acesulfame-K, both of which have a lessened aftertaste. However, the common factor with all of these three is that they've been available for years, have undergone extensive toxicity testing and as long as they're not used in excess, they appear to be generally OK.
(continued)
Sucralose on the other hand is a relatively new compound with a molecular structure that has been a topic for debate since it was first discussed in the journals. Sucralose is manufactured via a complex chemical process using a substantial number of precursors. This, per se, has been sufficient reason to cause the alarm bells of the food lobbyists and health campaigners to ring. There are also people out there who claim to have become ill following ingestion of Sucralose. Whilst these people can only provide mainly anecdotal evidence with limited scientific evidence, they may have a point and some of their illnesses may be attributable to Sucralose. On the other hand, Sucralose may be totally harmless. However, the reality is that no-one knows for certain how the body deals with Sucralose and I have little doubt that more evidence will emerge in the future in the same way that it took years for evidence regarding other sweeteners to come to light. Personally, until the majority of the issues regarding Sucralose are resolved, I�ll desist from picking up those sachets at McDonald�s and elsewhere. The Cyclamates affair led to accusations of cover-ups and other underhand methods from certain quarters and I�d hate to see it all occurring again.
(continued)
(continued)
With regard to published papers, if you dig deep enough you'll always come across a paper citing adverse effects of a sweetener. It's clear on the one hand that there are a lot of scientific papers out there regarding the safety of artificial sweeteners. On the other hand, there's also a lot of pseudo-scientific claptrap from other people who are said to know what they're talking about. It's not easy sometimes to distinguish one from the other.
I hadn't seen the Hull article until you mentioned it. I take it this is the one you meant?
http://www.sweetpoison.com/
It's fascinating stuff and I�ll agree that some of these claims are feasible. Follow-up evidence would have been useful but as usual, has not been forthcoming. That�s not to say that these accounts should be dismissed.
Personally, I stay clear of all of them by either taking a small amount of sugar or no sugar at all.
I hadn't seen the Hull article until you mentioned it. I take it this is the one you meant?
http://www.sweetpoison.com/
It's fascinating stuff and I�ll agree that some of these claims are feasible. Follow-up evidence would have been useful but as usual, has not been forthcoming. That�s not to say that these accounts should be dismissed.
Personally, I stay clear of all of them by either taking a small amount of sugar or no sugar at all.
The paper I'm thinking of drestie is in my labs or offices at work. Right now, senility is preventing me recalling the author(s), journal or the volume and page concerned.
I know it was a biochemistry journal, but there are so many. I'll put a couple of researchers on the case in the morning. They should locate it even though I've been working at a number of labs in the past few months.
Glad you've noticed the influence of the manufacturer. The article by Bigal and Krymchantowski is interesting. One of the things that strikes me about the EBSCO links is the amount of fighting that has occurred over Splenda. Aggresive marketing also seems to have been an issue. There's clearly more to this than meets the eye.
I know it was a biochemistry journal, but there are so many. I'll put a couple of researchers on the case in the morning. They should locate it even though I've been working at a number of labs in the past few months.
Glad you've noticed the influence of the manufacturer. The article by Bigal and Krymchantowski is interesting. One of the things that strikes me about the EBSCO links is the amount of fighting that has occurred over Splenda. Aggresive marketing also seems to have been an issue. There's clearly more to this than meets the eye.
Thanks, theprof. Much appreciated.
May I ask what your field of research is? My father has a PhD in biochemistry from an English university and now works on angiogenesis and wound repair here in the states. I wonder if you know each other!
I myself am an ecologist who knows very little biochem (oh the shame, I know!), which makes critically analysing these papers more difficult, but interesting nonetheless!
Thanks again!
May I ask what your field of research is? My father has a PhD in biochemistry from an English university and now works on angiogenesis and wound repair here in the states. I wonder if you know each other!
I myself am an ecologist who knows very little biochem (oh the shame, I know!), which makes critically analysing these papers more difficult, but interesting nonetheless!
Thanks again!
I'm currently working with a number of research groups drestie in particular RNA helicase enzymes. Sorry for being a bit vague, but I'm reluctant to provide too much information as my anonymity is everything on this site.
I also supervise and conduct confidential research work for the UK government at a number of research stations in the UK. This does not leave me with much time to supervise too many research groups at uni especially since I'm also member of senior management at the university.
Angiogenesis is a fascinating subject and many advances have been made in this field in recent years. It's quite possible that I've met your Dad or at least, I've probably read papers that he may have contributed to. Either way, it's very likely I know of him especially if he graduated at one of the major UK research universities.
It looks like I'm your opposite drestie: I couldn't stand ecology and I was glad to finish the modules when I took my first biology degree.
I'm still searching for that paper.
In the meantime, I'm glad to have helped.
I also supervise and conduct confidential research work for the UK government at a number of research stations in the UK. This does not leave me with much time to supervise too many research groups at uni especially since I'm also member of senior management at the university.
Angiogenesis is a fascinating subject and many advances have been made in this field in recent years. It's quite possible that I've met your Dad or at least, I've probably read papers that he may have contributed to. Either way, it's very likely I know of him especially if he graduated at one of the major UK research universities.
It looks like I'm your opposite drestie: I couldn't stand ecology and I was glad to finish the modules when I took my first biology degree.
I'm still searching for that paper.
In the meantime, I'm glad to have helped.
1 to 19 of 19
