Does 'Equal' sweetener/ sugar give u cancer?

[Ebtisweetsam]

:w:
Last year i went to a coffee shop and ordered a cappucino and asked for equal instead of sugar and the lady behind the register told me that all those sweeteners were tested on rats and it gave them cancer.

She turned me off sweeteners, but i have always wondered if this was really true. Has anyone ever heard of this?

:hmm:

[Cabdullahi]

asparatame ,equal and sucralose all these are harmful ,i take alots of sucralose because its in the protien shake i drink but alhamdulilah im ok, its safe to say to occasionally drink ur coffes or wateva but use safer sweetners like rice syrup,stevia

[Ebtisweetsam]

asparatame ,equal and sucralose all these are harmful ,i take alots of sucralose because its in the protien shake i drink but alhamdulilah im ok, its safe to say to occasionally drink ur coffes or wateva but use safer sweetners like rice syrup,stevia

Actually it is the only first three u mentioned that i know of available here. So u think its true??? :nervous:

[Cabdullahi]

equal contains asparatame and i personally think asparatame is bad but tests have proved that there is no link between asparatame and brain tumours and cancer but if u consume it long term it might affect u when ur older

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[guyabano]

:w:
Last year i went to a coffee shop and ordered a cappucino and asked for equal instead of sugar and the lady behind the register told me that all those sweeteners were tested on rats and it gave them cancer.

She turned me off sweeteners, but i have always wondered if this was really true. Has anyone ever heard of this?

:hmm:

Silly.

True is, it has been tested on rats. True is also, it can become cancerous. But she forgot to mention (or simply ingorance) that you have to consume more than a few kilogramms of sweeteners everyday before it become harmful.

Even you drink 10 big bottles of Diet Coke a dy, you will even not have 1% of this dosage. So keep drinking your coffee with sweeteners if you like.

Peace

[IbnAbdulHakim]

^ just out of curiousity, why would it harm rats?! is it because humans can take far greater dosages?!

[Ebtisweetsam]

^ just out of curiousity, why would it harm rats?! is it because humans can take far greater dosages?!

my heart was at ease (from the comment above urs, then u spoilt it again :cry::cry:

[IbnAbdulHakim]

lol sorry ukhtee. was just curious


Assaalamu Alaikum

[ranma1/2]

:w:
Last year i went to a coffee shop and ordered a cappucino and asked for equal instead of sugar and the lady behind the register told me that all those sweeteners were tested on rats and it gave them cancer.

She turned me off sweeteners, but i have always wondered if this was really true. Has anyone ever heard of this?

:hmm:

did she tell you oranges causes cancer in male rats?

they give rats tomuch of everything. I have never ever heard of humans getting cancer from sweetners.

I myself prefer the taste of natural sugars myself.
Stevias a good natural subsittue.

[Woodrow]

^ just out of curiousity, why would it harm rats?! is it because humans can take far greater dosages?!

:sl:

It is because the rats are getting nearly 1000 times a greater dosage than a human would in relation to their body size. the testing was highly inaccurate as what was tested was to see if it could cause cancer in rats and if so how much would it take.

The error with the test is the size of the dosage was much larger that what any human would get and it was done on rats. Rats are not human and do not have the same body structure as a human.

The test did little to determine if it can or can not cause cancer in humans.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

^ yeah i never did understand animal testing. Just because it works on an animal doesnt mean it will work on a human.

We have very different biological features...

[Noora]

i always hear mixed opinions about whether sugar substitutes cause cancer or not....these days there are so many theories its hard to know which way to go...

[Devolutionist]

:w:

The reason they test on rats and other animals is because most of the basic biochemical mechanisms have remained identical between species, so they can see the effects at a basic level.

Natural sugar is no doubt much healthier :D

[ranma1/2]

:sl:

It is because the rats are getting nearly 1000 times a greater dosage than a human would in relation to their body size. the testing was highly inaccurate as what was tested was to see if it could cause cancer in rats and if so how much would it take.

The error with the test is the size of the dosage was much larger that what any human would get and it was done on rats. Rats are not human and do not have the same body structure as a human.

The test did little to determine if it can or can not cause cancer in humans.

frankly id expect you to just have a really crappy health if you ate anything to that quantity they fed those poor rats ( i use to have rats, they make great pets, smarter than dogs and they dont bite like evil hamsters do.)

[BlackMamba]

Ive heard that the artificial sugar actually makes you crave real sugar more. So you are more likely to just go crazy one day and go on a sugar binge.

[Woodrow]

Ive heard that the artificial sugar actually makes you crave real sugar more. So you are more likely to just go crazy one day and go on a sugar binge.

There may be some truth in that. We have become addicted to refined sugar, avoiding it will cause some withdrawal symptoms.

I believe that can be offset by getting some naturally unprocessed sugar daily, such as as by being certain to eat several servings of ripe fresh fruit daily.

[Noora]

There may be some truth in that. We have become addicted to refined sugar, avoiding it will cause some withdrawal symptoms.

I believe that can be offset by getting some naturally unprocessed sugar daily, such as as by being certain to eat several servings of ripe fresh fruit daily.

yes i saw a documentry where a a dietician said the same about sweetners, but as mentioned above refined sugar will do the same, the best thing to do is avoid both if possible and take it in natural forms..easy said than done though....fruits a re yummy and good but u cant help reach for that piece of chocolate or cake. I guess moderation would be the key..

[FatimaAsSideqah]

As Salaam Alaykum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuhu

Artificial sweeteners, also called sugar substitutes, are substances that are used instead of sucrose (table sugar) to sweeten foods and beverages. Because artificial sweeteners are many times sweeter than table sugar, smaller amounts are needed to create the same level of sweetness.

Studies in laboratory rats during the early 1970s linked saccharin with the development of bladder cancer. For this reason, Congress mandated that further studies of saccharin be performed and required that all food containing saccharin bear the following warning label: "Use of this product may be hazardous to your health. This product contains saccharin, which has been determined to cause cancer in laboratory animals." Subsequent studies in rats showed an increased incidence of urinary bladder cancer at high doses of saccharin consumption, especially in male rats. However, mechanistic studies (studies that examine how a substance works in the body) have shown that these results apply only to rats. Human epidemiology studies (studies of patterns, causes, and control of diseases in groups of people) have shown no consistent evidence that saccharin is associated with bladder cancer incidence.

Allah Hafiz
Sister Fatima

[root]

As Salaam Alaykum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuhu

Artificial sweeteners, also called sugar substitutes, are substances that are used instead of sucrose (table sugar) to sweeten foods and beverages. Because artificial sweeteners are many times sweeter than table sugar, smaller amounts are needed to create the same level of sweetness.

A recent test on rats (February 2008)

Seperate groups of rats were fed a set ammount of yogurt, one group recieved sucrose the other saccharin, plus an unrestricted supply of rat food and water.

Result

All saccharin fed rats had eaten more, gained more weight and put on more body fat. The researchers also found that giving the sucrose fed rats a high calorie chocolate pudding treat made them eat less afterwards whereas the saccharin fed rats showed less restraint in what they ate next.

Conclusion.

Animals including humans use cues like sweetners to predict satiation. When the relationship between sweetnes and calories is consistent they unconciuosly use it to regulate intake; when it is inconsistent they can't.

The paradox also here is to lose weight by consuming less then ditch the diet coke!