Not So Sweet

By Bonnie Jenkins, Advanced Natural Medicine Bulletin

As I was rushing through the health food store the other day, I grabbed one of the nutrition bars at the checkout counter. Now, I don’t normally eat these pseudo-healthy bars, but I was short on time and famished. So, after tossing my shopping bag in the backseat of my car, I reached for the bar and prepared to scarf. That’s when I saw it – the splash across the label announcing that the product was “sugar-free.”

I’m a purist – if I’m going to eat something sweet (which doesn’t happen often), it had better contain plain old unadulterated sugar or, better yet, honey or maple syrup. So, out of habit, I checked the label expecting to see aspartame. Instead, my oatmeal-apple nutrition bar was packed with sucralose – a calorie-free sugar substitute that’s 600 times sweeter than sugar.

Sucralose is a relatively new sweetener – it was only approved by the FDA in 1998 – and is sold under the brand name Splenda. And, since its introduction, it’s caught on like wildfire. In fact, it’s now included in more than 3,000 products – from yogurt to cookies to salad dressings. Gatorade even includes it in its new ‘Propel’ fitness water. But, how safe is Splenda?

Sweet dreams

Proponents (mainly the folks who stand to profit from the sweetener) claim that Splenda tastes like sugar because it’s made from sugar. But after a little chemistry magic by its manufacturer, Johnson & Johnson has come up with a sugary substance that the body doesn’t recognize as a carbohydrate. As a result, they claim that Splenda isn’t metabolized – it just passes right through your system.

But, while sucralose is promoted as healthful and even “natural,” there’s one thing they forget to mention. Although Splenda starts out as sugar, it ends up as a very chemical substance. And that’s what has critics worried.

Sucralose is created through a five-step manufacturing process that substitutes three chlorine atoms for the hydrogen and oxygen atoms on a sugar molecule. The result is a highly stable molecule that supposedly can’t be absorbed by the body and has absolutely no impact as it passes through the digestive tract.

The problem is that few human studies have been published on the safety of sucralose. One small study of diabetic patients using the sweetener showed a significant increase in glycosylated hemoglobin (Hba1C), a marker of long-term blood glucose levels. In other words, Splenda raised blood sugar levels in the study participants.

When it comes to test-tube and animal studies, there’s also a shortage of evidence. Compared to saccharin (which has been the subject of 2,374 studies) and aspartame (598 studies), sucralose only offered up 19 studies during the FDA’s approval process. Of those that didn’t make the cut, many had inconclusive results for toxicity.

One study that has caused a lot of controversy appeared in the journal Food Chemistry and Toxicology in 1990. It seems that, when researchers fed sucralose to rats, they noted several changes, including caecal (the pouch that marks the beginning of the large intestine) enlargement. The study also found that the rats experienced an increase in renal mineralization.

Another scientific review, which appeared in New Scientist, has also sparked concern – this time over Splenda’s impact on the thymus gland. In the review, researchers evaluated studies on rats starved under experimental conditions and concluded that their growth rate could be reduced by as much as a third without the thymus losing a significant amount of weight. But they noted that these changes were much more pronounced in rats fed sucralose. In fact, while the animals’ growth rate was only reduced seven to 20 percent, their thymuses shrank by as much as 40 percent.

Olestra all over again

You might remember Olestra – the fat substitute that hit the market a few years ago. One of the big selling points for this phony fat was that it wasn’t absorbed into the human body.

The same ploy is being used to market Splenda. But, despite the manufacturer’s claim that sucralose isn’t metabolized by the body at all, the FDA’s “Final Rule” report noted that the human body can indeed absorb the stuff. In fact, they report that 11 to 27 percent may be absorbed after it is ingested. And that may be a low estimate. According to the Japanese Food Sanitation Council, as much as 40 percent of the ingested sucralose is absorbed and concentrated in the liver, kidneys and gastrointestinal tract.

British researchers have seen this in action. Following a single dose of sucralose, the researchers tested eight male volunteers to see how much of the sweetener was excreted from their bodies and how long it took to pass through their systems. On average, 92.8 percent of the sucralose was excreted through urine and feces – which makes me wonder what happened to the other 7.2 percent. But the researchers also noted that it took almost 19 hours for the sucralose to be purged from the volunteer’s bodies.

Just like Olestra, which the FDA also deemed safe for consumption, adverse affects are beginning to crop up among users. Reports from consumers include complaints of forgetfulness, depression, anxiety and panic attacks. Some users have also experienced headaches, itching and rashes. But the most common complaint among people who have eaten sucralose-laced goodies is a violent gastrointestinal attack, similar to those experienced with food poisoning.

So can you really have your sugar-free cake and eat it too? Until they can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that sucralose is safe (I’m not holding my breath), it’s probably a good idea to pass on the Splenda. Only time – and further testing – will show whether these concerns are justified or not. In the meantime, it’s the consumer who will be the guinea pig.

One last thing . . .

If you’re looking for a no-cal sweetener that’s actually good for you, try stevia. Three hundred times sweeter than cane sugar, stevia is an herb that’s relatively easy to find in your local health food store. But don’t look for it next to the raw sugar and honey. The FDA classifies stevia as a dietary supplement, so it isn’t allowed to make any claims as a sweetener – even though it’s been used for that very purpose for hundreds of years.

Along with sweetening your coffee, this herb also has a positive affect on blood sugar and blood pressure levels. One recent study by researchers at Aarhus University Hospital in Denmark found that stevia lowers blood sugar levels in diabetics while increasing their insulin response. Earlier research shows that steviosides, the sweet-tasting compound in stevia, also lowers both systolic and diastolic blood pressure levels.

Stevia is available in a liquid or powdered form, and I urge you to give it a try. But, since stevia is so much sweeter than sugar, don’t go overboard. One-quarter teaspoon of powdered stevia or six to nine drops of the liquid form is equivalent to one tablespoon of sugar.

This just in . . .

When it comes to lowering cholesterol naturally, policosanol can be a very effective option. But, unlike some non-pharmaceutical cholesterol fighters, most people don’t know much about this heart-healthy supplement – which is why I was happy to see an e-mail from one reader known simply as H.C.

H.C. writes – “With regard to policosanol, what is the actual mechanism of its cholesterol-lower effects? Does it also lower Coenzyme Q10 like the statin drugs?”

Policosanol is a supplement that can normalize cholesterol as well or better than drugs, without side effects. Efficacy and safety have been proven in numerous clinical trials, and it has been used by millions of people in other countries. Policosanol can lower LDL (bad) cholesterol as much as 20 percent and raise protective HDL cholesterol by 10 percent.

It seems that policosanol works by blocking the synthesis of cholesterol. It doesn’t inhibit the HMG-CoA enzyme like statin drugs do, but it may inhibit a different enzyme. But unfortunately, scientists haven’t nailed down the exact mechanism yet.

What really makes policosanol exciting though is that it has other actions against heart disease in addition to lowering cholesterol. Like statin drugs, policosanol helps stop the formation of artery lesions. This was proven in studies on rabbits fed a diet designed to create high cholesterol. It also reduces complications in people with artery disease, reduces thromboxane which promotes inflammation and enhances the benefits of exercise.

As for H.C.’s second question, I wasn’t able to dig up anything on policosanol’s impact on Co-Q10 levels. But if you suffer from heart disease – even if you aren’t taking statin drugs – it’s a good idea to add a Co-Q10 supplement to your routine. You may even be able to find a supplement that combines Co-Q10 with policosanol.

***

Jeppesen PB, et al. “Stevioside induces antihyperglycaemic, insulinotropic and glucagonostatic effects in vivo: studies in the diabetic Goto-Kakizaki (GK) rats.” Phytomedicine. 2002;9:9-14.

Lord GH, et al. “Renal mineralization--a ubiquitous lesion in chronic rat studies.” Food Chemistry and Toxicology. 1990;6:449-55.

Mas R, et al. “Effects of policosanol in patients with type II hypercholesterolemia and additional coronary risk factors.” Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics. 1999;65:439-447.

Mercola J. “The Potential Dangers of Sucralose.” 3 Dec 2000. www.mercola.com

New Scientist. 23 Nov 1991, p. 13.

Roberts A, et al. “Sucralose metabolism and pharmacokinetics in man.” Food Chemistry and Toxicology. 2000;38:S31-41.