Which is more evil: High fructose corn syrup, or Sucralose?

Being a student I find myself with very little time to eat something sometimes and so I go to a gas station or 7-11 to get something, but everything there is crap. So I usually end up getting a protein bar made with sucralose (Splenda). I know that sucralose is not good for you, but I'd rather eat that then a protein bar WITH sugar. Would anyone agree or disagree that this is the better option?

JHarsh80 - You're better off with sugar.

Sucralose is "sugar" with the hydrogen molecule removed, and replaced with a chlorine molecule.

Studies how it may increase cardiovascular disease, and is associated with weight gain.

Honestly, protein bars are loaded with soooo much crap...Soy, Milk, etc. I'd say Splenda is better, but anything "sweet" will feed fungus. The best option, JH, is to bring an 18-pack carton of hard-broiled eggs with you wherever you go. I just put them beside me on my desk, though you can keep them in the car as well and just pop a few when need be. Be sure to boil them in salt so that the shell doesn't tear the egg apart when you open it up! No more than 20 minutes. :0)

JHarsh80 - I have an idea for you, because I tried this myself.

Like Nidhogge stated, there are virtually no "safe" protein bars.

I do know of one however. These are great, they have both chocolate and peanut butter. I've only tried the chocolate, but I hear the peanut butter is good.

http://www.iherb.com/ProductDetails.aspx?c=1&pid=-7263023972077632448&at=0

There's absolutely nothing in these bars that are bad.

Wow IH...great find! You're right, not one bad ingredient in there!

They are all bad although some are worse than others. Refined grains and to some degree meat fall into the same category as they all raise blood sugar levels.

While ALCA/ALA balance out the blood sugar spikes I prefer to use sweeteners that do not raise blood sugar levels and if I do consume anything sweet, I consume it with fiber and fat. This helps to significantly lower the glycemic load and thus enable my body to easily handle the occasional high sugar food, like honey.

Thanks for the advice guys. Nid that's a good idea about the eggs. I still have the conditioning that eggs are bad for you, so it's hard for me to eat a bunch. I have been eating 2 a day for breakfast though. Maybe I could put them in an ice chest because they would be siting in my car during school.

IH, thanks for the link to the bars. I may get some of those too, but not now while I'm trying to kill of candida. I started taking inositol and I know that it is synthesized from glucose and is sweet. This shouldn't be a problem with the candida right? Wiki mentions that the d-chiro form helps with insulin resistance:

Wikipedia:

Psychiatric conditions

Patients suffering from clinical depression generally have decreased levels of inositol in their cerebrospinal fluid.[6]

Some preliminary results of studies on inositol supplements show promising results for people suffering from problems such as bulimia, panic disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and unipolar and bipolar depression.[6]

Myo-inositol has been found in a single double-blind study to significantly reduce the symptoms of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) with effectiveness equal to SSRIs and virtually without side-effects.[7] In a double-blind, controlled trial, myo-inositol was superior to fluvoxamine for decreasing the number of panic attacks and had fewer side effects.[8] A double-blind, placebo-controlled study of depressed patients showed that a high dose of inositol (12 grams daily) resulted in significant improvement of symptoms, with no changes noted in liver, kidney, or hematological function.[6]

[edit] Other conditions

D-chiro-inositol (DCI) has been found in two double-blind studies to be an effective treatment for many of the clinical hallmarks of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), including insulin resistance, hyperandrogenism, and oligo-amenorrhea.[9][10] The impetuses for these studies were the observed defects in DCI metabolism in PCOS and the implication of DCI in insulin signal transduction.[11][12]

Animal studies suggest inositol reduces the severity of the osmotic demyelination syndrome if given prior to rapid correction of chronic hyponatraemia.[13] Further study is required prior to its application in humans for this indication.

Studies from in vitro experiments, animal studies, and limited clinical experiences, claim that inositol may be used effectively against some types of cancer, in particular, when used in combination with phytic acid.[14

JHarsh80 - I didn't know about DCI with respect to PCOS, good to know.

Don't worry about the sweet taste (of inositol), it works pretty well with sweetening beverages.

Oh, gotta throw in my 2 cents on eggs.

Before, I say a word, this is a great link to look at:

http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm

Actually, I'm going to leave this to one of my favorite MD's of yesteryear. When the media first started reporting about the so-called "dangers" of eggs, this doctor knew it was a load of crap. This man is Dr. William Campbell Douglass the II.

"Eggs' Enormous Health Benefits

Sunny upsides of eggs

More research eggs-onerates nature's perfect food

For years, I've been trumpeting the news that eggs aren't the ticker-choking death bombs the mainstream claims. I've also been telling everyone who'll listen about eggs' enormous health benefits - egg-eaters get huge infusion of Omega-3s, protein, amino acids and healthy fats every time they crack a yolk. These vital substances boost not only your heart health, but also your musculature, joints and bones, and even mental functioning (more on this in a minute).

And don't be lulled by the recent trend in the media that seems to paint eggs in a more positive light - the meat-hating mainstream still thinks eggs are the dregs. They've just been forced by THE FACTS to give them a certain amount of positive ink. Facts like this latest finding from the Yale Prevention Research Center in Connecticut.

According to a recent Reuters Health article, a 6-week study of 49 adults showed that consuming 2 eggs daily does not adversely effect either cholesterol levels (completely misunderstood, by the way - but that's another Dose) or endothelial functioning, which is widely regarded as an early sign of arterial disease and an indicator of future heart risk. This finding is significant in that it DOUBLES the American Heart Association's recent blessing to a one-egg-a-day diet for good heart health. This Yale research follows several other key findings I've reported on in recent years, including:
The University of Washington study which showed that adding 2 daily eggs to the diet recommended by the National Cholesterol Program had no effect on plasma LDL (consider by the mainstream to be "bad" cholesterol) - even among those with elevated LDL

A European study of 21,000 men which concluded that dietary cholesterol was unassociated with heart disease risk

A large body of epidemiological research (over 117,000 subjects, in fact) showing that overall adjusted risk for heart disease was identical whether participants ate no eggs at all or seven or more per week
Of course, the article cautions that the study was conducted only on "healthy" adults (by this, they must mean "low cholesterol"), and that a 2-eggs-a-day diet may have a different effect on those with elevated blood lipids. Another study targeting this group is planned. Obviously, the "Yalies" don't know about the University of Washington study which already proves there's no correlation.

And they clearly didn't bother to ask me - I could have saved them the trouble of all these studies by telling them the simple truth: No amount of dietary cholesterol consumption has any bearing (other than a positive one) on heart health or blood lipids.

But a LACK of cholesterol in the diet can surely have a negative impact. Keep reading…

****************************************************

Giving new meaning to the term "egghead"

If someone's called an "egghead," it means they're smart. And ironically, this term usually reserved for the slide-rule and pocket-protector set is actually dead-on right. Here's what I mean…

A Boston University research team recently concluded that not having ENOUGH dietary cholesterol can cause a measurable deficit in mental functioning. According to Reuters Health, the team used data from nearly 2000 men and women who originally participated in the world-renowned (yet largely inaccurate) Framingham heart study to calculate the relationship between total cholesterol and cognitive performance.

Their findings: That when the lowest-cholesterol group was compared with the highest-cholesterol group (those with blood levels of 240-380), the low-lipid folks were as much as 80% more likely to perform poorly on tests of similarities, word fluency, attention, and concentration.

Hmmm. Blood-fats good for the brain? Yes. And not to be bitter or anything, but I've only been saying this for THIRTY-FIVE YEARS! I'm not complaining, though - it's good to see the truth finally leaking out in the mainstream sources, even if it is only a little bit at a time.

But again, they could have just asked me in the first place and saved themselves all the trouble and expense.

Egging on the establishment - toward the real healthy truth,

William Campbell Douglass II, MD"

IH--

I've been a member of the Daily Dose for almost a year now, I love Dr. Douglass--very intelligent man!

Thanks IH. Do you think from an evolutionary standpoint that we can digest eggs but not lactose so well because we probably found nests and ate the eggs, but we obviously weren't milking animals?

nidhogge - I've seen you mention him before, yeah, he's great. He's written some very important material, including a book called the, "Real Milk Book," and "Into the Light," which is about Photoluminescence.

JHarsh80 - On lactose the answer is simple. Pasteurization is the ONLY problem with respect to lactose. The "health authorities" have done more to injure us than there is room on this page, but pasteurization is one of many "health crimes."

When milk is pasteurized it kills off the enzymes, including lactase, which is what digests lactose. Lactose intolerance doesn't exist with raw milk. Additionally, when milk is pasteurized it perverts the lactose sugar even more, by making it beta-lactose, multiplying its effects on glucose levels.

I might as well add on the subject that grass-fed is the only way to go on the milk front. Further, whole milk is better than skim, or non-fat milk. Whole fat milk decreases lactose absorption.

A study on regular milk, whole versus skim, the skim milker drinkers gained weight, the whole milk drinkers did not.

Back to pasteurization, it kills all the good and leaves in the bad.

Almost forgot, all that "evil" and I didn't even mention rBGH (recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone). Hormones or not, pasteurized milk is one of the worst for hair.

CausticSymmetry wrote:Almost forgot, all that "evil" and I didn't even mention rBGH (recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone). Hormones or not, pasteurized milk is one of the worst for hair.

Just to be clear, is this extended to pasteurized butter?

Milk is only bad because of how insulegenic it is, correct? The butter being all fat isn't insulegenic?

Butter isn't a worry, there's no lactose in it. Grass-fed butter is really expensive, so I buy the regular stuff, LOL.

CausticSymmetry wrote:Butter isn't a worry, there's no lactose in it. Grass-fed butter is really expensive, so I buy the regular stuff, LOL.

Yeah it is! Like $13 for a couple of ounces. Outrageous.

Guys--

http://www.organicpastures.com