I've been addressing my glucose intolerance issues through an ultra-low carb diet for over a decade, and while I've cut out almost all products with natural or artificial sweeteners, my two remaining sweeteners of choice are stevia and aspartame. I use a combination of those for the occasional baked good, such as almond cookies or pudding as per diabetic recipes from the 1800s [0]. The recipe calls for saccharin tablets, which were used as a sweetener for almost 100 years; the question I always ask is, "Did bladder cancer rates increase in diabetics using saccharin over almost 100 years?" If the answer is no, then why replace an inexpensive sweetener with Aspartame? If Aspartame has not created a wave of new cancers in its user base, then I ask myself, "Why replace another inexpensive sweetener with sucralose?"
When I started my new way of eating, I ordered sucralose drops (because at the time, I wanted to "test" all sweeteners), and while the drops themselves did not increase my blood glucose, to me, sucralose left a very sickly-sweet, unpleasant feeling at the back of my tongue. My pedestrian understanding of the process used to make sucralose is that it takes tons of sugar to create pounds of sucralose – not sure if that contributes to it being sickly-sweet.
The WHO is right in cautioning the use of any sweetener (natural or artificial), but it seems silly to single one out at this time. I'm confident that in 40 years, sucralose will be explicitly added to the list (and industry will switch yet again to the latest artificial sweetener).0: https://archive.org/details/dietinsicknessa00hartgoog/page/n...
No comments yet.