<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.7" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Splenda Reduces Gut Bacteria in Rats</title>
	<link>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/11/22/splenda-reduces-gut-bacteria-in-rats/</link>
	<description>Self-Experimentation, Scientific Method, the Shangri-La Diet, etc.</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 07:59:06 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.7</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: seth</title>
		<link>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/11/22/splenda-reduces-gut-bacteria-in-rats/#comment-395003</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Feb 2010 14:08:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/11/22/splenda-reduces-gut-bacteria-in-rats/#comment-395003</guid>
					<description>Thanks, Alex. I don't know about xylitol, sorry. In &lt;em&gt;Nutrition and Physical Degeneration&lt;/em&gt; (available online), Weston Price has a lot to say, based on data, about what foods do and don't cause cavities. I don't know if his ideas will be helpful, because they sort of boil down to modern food is bad, but you might learn something useful from it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks, Alex. I don&#8217;t know about xylitol, sorry. In <em>Nutrition and Physical Degeneration</em> (available online), Weston Price has a lot to say, based on data, about what foods do and don&#8217;t cause cavities. I don&#8217;t know if his ideas will be helpful, because they sort of boil down to modern food is bad, but you might learn something useful from it.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Alexandra Carmichael</title>
		<link>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/11/22/splenda-reduces-gut-bacteria-in-rats/#comment-394995</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Feb 2010 12:43:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/11/22/splenda-reduces-gut-bacteria-in-rats/#comment-394995</guid>
					<description>Hi Seth,

This is fascinating. What about xylitol? Due to its antibacterial/cavity-preventing properties, we are considering giving it to our daughter who is prone to cavities. Any idea if it would affect the bacteria in her gut?

Thanks for your thoughts, and for always posting such thought-provoking pieces.
Alex :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Seth,</p>
<p>This is fascinating. What about xylitol? Due to its antibacterial/cavity-preventing properties, we are considering giving it to our daughter who is prone to cavities. Any idea if it would affect the bacteria in her gut?</p>
<p>Thanks for your thoughts, and for always posting such thought-provoking pieces.<br />
Alex <img src='http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' />
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: KS</title>
		<link>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/11/22/splenda-reduces-gut-bacteria-in-rats/#comment-368898</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Dec 2009 04:35:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/11/22/splenda-reduces-gut-bacteria-in-rats/#comment-368898</guid>
					<description>I retrieved the paper using Google Scholar, and discovered this acknowledgment: "This research was supported in part by a grant from the Sugar Association,
Inc., Washington, DC"

In other words, the study cannot be assumed to be entirely unbiased.
This is not to say that the findings are not valid -- they might be.
(I hope not, since I've been using Splenda, having switched from aspartame due to concerns about its safety.) But when a competing interest is funding a study, the results need to be viewed with some skepticism.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I retrieved the paper using Google Scholar, and discovered this acknowledgment: &#8220;This research was supported in part by a grant from the Sugar Association,<br />
Inc., Washington, DC&#8221;</p>
<p>In other words, the study cannot be assumed to be entirely unbiased.<br />
This is not to say that the findings are not valid &#8212; they might be.<br />
(I hope not, since I&#8217;ve been using Splenda, having switched from aspartame due to concerns about its safety.) But when a competing interest is funding a study, the results need to be viewed with some skepticism.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: John H</title>
		<link>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/11/22/splenda-reduces-gut-bacteria-in-rats/#comment-368011</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 07:06:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/11/22/splenda-reduces-gut-bacteria-in-rats/#comment-368011</guid>
					<description>To me, Stevia tastes more bitter than sweet. So until this controversy about Splenda is cleared up, I think I may have to go back to aspartame (Equal). Better to run a small increased risk of brain cancer (if even that--see Seth's previous posts on aspartame and readers' comments) than this?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To me, Stevia tastes more bitter than sweet. So until this controversy about Splenda is cleared up, I think I may have to go back to aspartame (Equal). Better to run a small increased risk of brain cancer (if even that&#8211;see Seth&#8217;s previous posts on aspartame and readers&#8217; comments) than this?
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Ted</title>
		<link>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/11/22/splenda-reduces-gut-bacteria-in-rats/#comment-367150</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 22:12:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/11/22/splenda-reduces-gut-bacteria-in-rats/#comment-367150</guid>
					<description>Since aspartme is actually used as an ingredient in 'lite' yogurts, is it safe to assume that aspartme is unlikely to chase off gut bacteria in the same way?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Since aspartme is actually used as an ingredient in &#8216;lite&#8217; yogurts, is it safe to assume that aspartme is unlikely to chase off gut bacteria in the same way?
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: smeach</title>
		<link>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/11/22/splenda-reduces-gut-bacteria-in-rats/#comment-367138</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 21:29:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/11/22/splenda-reduces-gut-bacteria-in-rats/#comment-367138</guid>
					<description>I have a copy of the article. Unfortunately, copywright law prohibits me from sharing my personal copy. 

However, if you type "Abou-Donia and splenda," on Google Scholar, you may find a link to the article.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have a copy of the article. Unfortunately, copywright law prohibits me from sharing my personal copy. </p>
<p>However, if you type &#8220;Abou-Donia and splenda,&#8221; on Google Scholar, you may find a link to the article.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Study: Splenda kills beneficial bacteria in GI tract &#124; Les Jones</title>
		<link>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/11/22/splenda-reduces-gut-bacteria-in-rats/#comment-364385</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:21:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/11/22/splenda-reduces-gut-bacteria-in-rats/#comment-364385</guid>
					<description>[...] Seth Roberts - Splenda Reduces Gut Bacteria in Rats: This 2008 study done at Duke University found that small amounts of Splenda — similar to what a person might consume — reduced “beneficial bacteria” in the guts of rats. The effect was very large (reduction by about 50% in 12 weeks) and occurred even at the lowest dose, which was lower than what the FDA allows. Most ominous of all, the effect had not levelled off after 12 weeks. The number of bacteria was still going down. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Seth Roberts - Splenda Reduces Gut Bacteria in Rats: This 2008 study done at Duke University found that small amounts of Splenda — similar to what a person might consume — reduced “beneficial bacteria” in the guts of rats. The effect was very large (reduction by about 50% in 12 weeks) and occurred even at the lowest dose, which was lower than what the FDA allows. Most ominous of all, the effect had not levelled off after 12 weeks. The number of bacteria was still going down. [&#8230;]
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: seth</title>
		<link>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/11/22/splenda-reduces-gut-bacteria-in-rats/#comment-364319</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:49:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/11/22/splenda-reduces-gut-bacteria-in-rats/#comment-364319</guid>
					<description>"Are all man-made sweeteners harmful?" It is beginning to look that way. One reason there are so many is that problems keep being identified long after FDA approval. Certainly they are more dangerous than we are led to believe.

Yes, Diet Pepsi is sweetened with aspartame (Nutrasweet), not Splenda (sucralose).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Are all man-made sweeteners harmful?&#8221; It is beginning to look that way. One reason there are so many is that problems keep being identified long after FDA approval. Certainly they are more dangerous than we are led to believe.</p>
<p>Yes, Diet Pepsi is sweetened with aspartame (Nutrasweet), not Splenda (sucralose).
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Keane</title>
		<link>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/11/22/splenda-reduces-gut-bacteria-in-rats/#comment-364226</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 06:20:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/11/22/splenda-reduces-gut-bacteria-in-rats/#comment-364226</guid>
					<description>I think diet Pepsi would have been using a different sweetener than Splenda,
maybe aspartame.  Certainly a diffent chemical, from Splenda.

Are all man made sweeteners harmful?  Does natural source necessarily
mean more beneficial?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think diet Pepsi would have been using a different sweetener than Splenda,<br />
maybe aspartame.  Certainly a diffent chemical, from Splenda.</p>
<p>Are all man made sweeteners harmful?  Does natural source necessarily<br />
mean more beneficial?
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Sheila</title>
		<link>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/11/22/splenda-reduces-gut-bacteria-in-rats/#comment-364064</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:08:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/11/22/splenda-reduces-gut-bacteria-in-rats/#comment-364064</guid>
					<description>Benefits of Stevia:
* Sugarless with no calories  
* Will not effect blood sugar levels like sugar does.  
* 100% Natural  
* 250 to 300 times sweeter than sugar 
* Heat stable to 200 degrees Celsius (392 degrees Fahrenheit)  
* Non-fermentable  
* Flavor enhancer  
* Plaque retardant Anti-caries (prevents cavities)  
* Recommended for diabetics  
* Non-toxic Extensively tested in animals and Extensively used by humans with no adverse effects. 

Stevia has been used in Japan since 1970 and there have been no reports of toxicity or other side effects.   The Japanese Food and Drug Safety Center has found stevia not to be mutagenic. Only one study has shown stevia to be potentially a mutagenic and this study has been criticized for errors in procedure. Scientist in Great Britain said that according to the study’s formula, distilled water is mutagenic.  Two studies showed stevia to have a contraceptive effect. The first study was done in Uruguay over 30 years ago and since then no one has been able to reproduce the results. The second study was done by a graduate student in Rio de Janeiro and the results and methods have been questionable. Multiple other studies have shown that stevia has no contraceptive effect.  
* Is Stevia Safe? Absolutely. Stevia has been used around the world with NO reports of stevia overdose or toxicity to humans in the past forty years.  

What are the benefits of Using Stevia? Studies have shown the following benefits from using Stevia in one's diet. These benefits have not been approved or confirmed by the FDA. 

Splenda on the other hand is made from binding chlorine with sugar....to me, the choice is obvious.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Benefits of Stevia:<br />
* Sugarless with no calories<br />
* Will not effect blood sugar levels like sugar does.<br />
* 100% Natural<br />
* 250 to 300 times sweeter than sugar<br />
* Heat stable to 200 degrees Celsius (392 degrees Fahrenheit)<br />
* Non-fermentable<br />
* Flavor enhancer<br />
* Plaque retardant Anti-caries (prevents cavities)<br />
* Recommended for diabetics<br />
* Non-toxic Extensively tested in animals and Extensively used by humans with no adverse effects. </p>
<p>Stevia has been used in Japan since 1970 and there have been no reports of toxicity or other side effects.   The Japanese Food and Drug Safety Center has found stevia not to be mutagenic. Only one study has shown stevia to be potentially a mutagenic and this study has been criticized for errors in procedure. Scientist in Great Britain said that according to the study’s formula, distilled water is mutagenic.  Two studies showed stevia to have a contraceptive effect. The first study was done in Uruguay over 30 years ago and since then no one has been able to reproduce the results. The second study was done by a graduate student in Rio de Janeiro and the results and methods have been questionable. Multiple other studies have shown that stevia has no contraceptive effect.<br />
* Is Stevia Safe? Absolutely. Stevia has been used around the world with NO reports of stevia overdose or toxicity to humans in the past forty years.  </p>
<p>What are the benefits of Using Stevia? Studies have shown the following benefits from using Stevia in one&#8217;s diet. These benefits have not been approved or confirmed by the FDA. </p>
<p>Splenda on the other hand is made from binding chlorine with sugar&#8230;.to me, the choice is obvious.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
