Should a chef, who is probably 60 pounds overweight, be promoting the use of a “no- calorie” artificial sweetener as “healthy” This was the question I asked myself as I channel flipped the other night and I happened upon the Food Network’s TV show “Unwrapped” and a promotion of Splenda as “healthy” with absolutely no discussion of any of the health problems surrounding it. l was incensed. I was angry. Their promotion of a commercial food product, and a controversial one, at that, was so blatant, like it was actually a food. And then I realized their brilliance. This was not a sell-out. This was a very clever demonstration of subliminal anti-marketing: To the general public, oversaturated with information and the attention span of a gnat, all they will see is:
Overweight Chef + No-calorie Artificial Sweetener = Does Not Work!
Ironically, studies, including a recent one at Duke University, have shown that sucralose (Splenda) caused weight gain in rats. There are no human studies to compare this with so we have to make do with rats. The food networks visual presentation on the topic said it all. Very clever!
As holistic nutritionist, I do not see a weight issue as a matter of calorie counting. I have work with and seen too many case studies of people who do not over eat. If anything they do not eat much at all, and despite frequent exercise, cannot move 40, 50, 60 extra pounds. So
I am not making light of anyone’s weight dilemma. Weight issues have many causes far more complicated than excess calories. So it is not helpful to anyone when the media and medical system equates health with thinness and low calorie. And convincing people that all they have to do to be healthy is be thin or that anything low calorie is good for them, just because it is low calorie, is doing them a great disservice.
I am not making light of anyone’s weight dilemma. Weight issues have many causes far more complicated than excess calories. So it is not helpful to anyone when the media and medical system equates health with thinness and low calorie. And convincing people that all they have to do to be healthy is be thin or that anything low calorie is good for them, just because it is low calorie, is doing them a great disservice.
Splenda is controversial. As with many commercially developed products, it is hard to find independent studies and when they occur, the manufacturer of the product counters with their own studies that state the opposite. Despite that, many concerns have been raised such as reduced intestinal flora, enlarged liver and kidneys, brain lesions, diarrhea and male infertility, to name a few.
I personally believe that man is not smart enough to outsmart nature and none of mankind’s tampering with our food has ever been beneficial. If we ignore all the negative studies, the best that can be said of sucralose: it is nothing. It has no calories, no vitamins, no minerals, no phytonutrients, no carbohydrates for energy, no protein for building blocks, no fats for brain and nervous system health. Nothing. What is the definition of “nothing? Something that has no quantitative value; no substance or importance; a nonentity Is this the description of something “healthy”.
Sucralose may be used to taste just as sweet as sugar but does this mean it should be used? The fact that it is created from the sucrose (sugar) molecule to be 600 times sweeter than sugar should be enough to scare anyone away. More importantly, there is no compelling health reason to consume this product. It is far better to consume whole sugar cane, raw honey, maple syrup, agave syrup or coconut sweetener, which will provide taste satisfaction as well as vitamins, minerals and phytonutrients, all substances that have been studied to prevent disease. They are also all low glycemic which means they do not spike blood sugar. Yes, they have calories but those calories provide energy. It is far better to eat these real foods with all their nutrients and if a lower calorie count is required, eat smaller portions.
The Wild Blueberry and Apricot Flan (pictured above), cut into 8 slices, is 361 calories If it were made with sucralose, the calorie count per slice would drop to 316, a savings of 45 calories. However, if the flan is cut into 10 slices the calorie count drops to 289 calories per slice, saving 72 calories. Best of all, the ingredients used would contain nutrients the body can use and there are no “unknowns” with regard to potential health problems. More importantly, it tastes better!
No comments:
Post a Comment