I think we are getting too much sugar. THat said, I would not want my children to regularly drink nutrasweet or other ‘manufactured’ sweetners. Once in a while ok - but not the standard drink. I would try to encourage water. If I had to use something sweet, I would go w/ koolaid sweetened 1/2 with stevia and the other 1/2 with another. I have found that a ‘pinch’ of stevia can easily cut other sweetner requirement in 1/2.
There are sodas that use splenda as the sweetner, I think RC and dietrite are two of the brands - this can give you an alternative to all one sweetner
Stevia would be an interesting choice! It’s from a plant in South America, where natives have been using it for ages. It’s about 100x (WAG based on the figure I can’t remember) sweet as sugar and therefore you need hardly any to produce the same sweetness.
Pick some up at your health food store and give it a shot. Good sugar substition for diabetics too.
According to site,provided by the National Institutes of Health, http://www.niddk.nih.gov/health/digest/pubs/lactose/lactose.htm
“Between 30 and 50 million Americans are lactose intolerant. Certain ethnic and racial populations are more widely affected than others. As many as 75 percent of all African-Americans and Native Americans and 90 percent of Asian-Americans are lactose intolerant. The condition is least common among persons of northern European descent.”
I’m leaning towards filtered water, myself…
Cartooniverse
While I don’t disagree that juice is better for you (although it very high in calories), on what planet do you live where it is cheaper than soda? Name-brand soda is always on sale for around $0.69 for 2 liters here, and juice is never that cheap. Orange juice on sale might be $2.00 for a half gallon.
Sucrose has a much higher glycemic index than fructose. Here’s one quote (from this site:
Even though they’re trying to sell something, as any diabetic knows, the glycemic index is an important parameter.
Higher insulin levels is even associated with higher cancer rates (due to oxidizing from the insulin, I think). There is a study out there (which I can’t cite until I get home) that shows aspartame causing increased cancer rates (if you each a huge amount), but sucrose with a higher cancer rate, presumably due to the subsequent insulin rush. While fructose has a lower glycemic index than sucrose, aspartame is even better, with a zero index.
Arjuna34
IANADietician (or an organic chemist), but here’s my understanding of the difference:
The first stage in metabolization of sugars is conversion to glucose, the form of sugar that the body actually burns. Sucrose is a disaccharide composed of equal parts glucose and fructose. Sucrose can be quickly broken apart into its glucose and fructose components; the glucose produces a rapid increase in the blood-glucose level (a sugar “rush”), while the fructose is processed more slowly. The body reacts to the heightened levels of glucose by producing more insulin to process it. When the “rush” runs out, the increased insulin levels persist briefly and drive the blood-glucose levels down below the levels existant before the “rush”. These levels gradually return to normal as fructose and stored glycogen are processed. These rapid shifts in glucose/insulin levels place some strain on the body, particularly the pancreas. In the short term, the sugar “rush” ends in a “crash”, in which lowered glucose levels produce symptoms of fatigue and mild depression. In the long term, some researchers believe that the strain contributes to the development of diabetes. (The problems this process presents for diabetics should be obvious.)
IIRC, sucrose also ferments more readily into lactic acid–which means that it’s worse for your teeth.
You’ll only find stevia as a “dietary supplement”. The FDA has banned the adulteration of food with stevioside (the sweetening agent in stevia) – as have the equivalent regulatory agencies in Canada, the UK, and the EU. Even the fashionably anti-corporate Center for Science in the Public Interest has doubts about this stuff.
The evidence to date suggests that stevioside is not harmful in the amounts used to sweeten beverages. However, partly because herbal importers are more interested in protecting their rather lucrative, if often small-scale, businesses than in providing facts, and partly because many businesses dealing in stevia are small-scale, and thus don’t have the resources to give the FDA the level of data it wants (my SWAG is that such a set of studies would cost about USD 50 million), petitions to get stevia and stevioside approved (when importers merely aren’t going “neener, neener, neener!” at the FDA) generally rely on the arguments “it’s not a food additive, it’s a foodstuff” and “but it’s natural and been in use for ages” (so was sassafras tea, though).
Ironically, steviol (a metabolite of stevioside) may be mutagenic. Since mutagenicity is often identified with carcinogenicity, stevioside (and stevia), if thoroughly tested, might end up being banned under the Delaney Amendment.
Why is fructose more desirable than sucrose? I think this is on the level of hippie science. Along with homeopathy and magnets.
Not to hijack, but what is wrong with sassafras tea? I am asking because I just bought a bottle of sassafras tea concentrate…should I dump it?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by galen *
**
Um, you might want to check out the last few posts, where this was already answered.
Arjuna34
**Balance, Arjuna: ** Those were good explanations for the difference between sucrose and fructose. For those who still have a problem with the difference, remember that fruit is good for you, and candy bars (generally) bad, just like you were always told.
Hippie science? Try chemistry.
Akat, that’s interesting information about stevia. I hadn’t realized that. Thanks!
Diamud, this is a WAG based on information I can almost remember. I think the sassafrass tea you probably have is made with sassafrass flavor versus actual sassafrass extract (remember, I’m guessing here!). I think the actual sassafrass extract is carcinogenic. Ever smell a crushed sassafrass leaf? Smells good; sweet like root beer, which I believe they also used the extract to make.
Except that some would argue that squeezing the juice out of fruit and mainlining the super-sugary juice, while discarding the valuable fiber, etc., makes fruit juice nearly as bad (true, it has vitamins) as kool-aid.
So a piece of fruit is good for you. An extract of just the juice is not as good.
Here is a link to why “juicing” is good for you: http://www.salton-maxim.com/salton/juiceman/juiceman.asp
Well, I’d say Salton (kitchen appliance manufacturer) is a slightly biased source… but this sounds like pure BS to me:
Umm… hasn’t the Juiceman ever heard of “chewing”? It does pretty much the same thing as a juicer: pulverize fruit. I mean, it’s not like the juicers leach nutrients from the fiber with a solvent, they just crush cell walls.
Sassafras tea is traditionally made from sassafras root bark, which in turn contains sassafras oil. That oil is up to 70% safrole, a toxic and carcinogenic aromatic ester (small amounts of safrole are found in other spices, notably nutmeg and mace, but at levels deemed to be effectively harmless). The FDA has banned the use of safrole (including safrole-containing sassafras bark extract) in foodstuffs and other products to be ingested since 1960, and has banned the sale of unmodified sassafras extract since 1976 (but see below)
As BunnyGirl points out, your sassafras tea concentrate may be artifically flavored. It’s also possible to remove the safrole from sassafras extract, although you won’t be able to do this at home.
Maybe it’s best to have the whole fruit and drink water, but if you need a sweet drink (which some people seem to do) then juice mixed with water is definitely the best bet. (I can maybe understand that citrus juice loses its fibers, but I still don’t see why apple juice not from concentrate should be any different chemically than apples.)