Thread: Lipton Iced Tea question

Sweetened or not?

how about sweetened with Splenda?

I drink loads of green tea (iced). It has a lot of antioxidants and I don't think there is anything wrong with it. It can be flavored with lemon grass or spearmint leaves as well as artificial sweeteners.

Originally Posted by Loz1000rr

good or bad?

Im not drinking soda or juices. I find it very difficult to eat a breakfast and then having to top it off with plain old water. I mean, I have cut out juices and sodas but I want something to look foward to drinking. I am not a fan of coffee or tea. I like Iced Tea, not the regular tea.

so is this OK to keep in my diet?

thanks in advance.

I am really not sure what you guys call 'iced tea'... To me, it means you brew a tea from tea leaves - usually a herbal or green tea (and this is just plain tea so it has no sweetener or anything) and allow it to cool then you add some ice and drink..

So if this is the case - then this is perfectly acceptable and, especially if it is green or white tea, it is also really healthy for you!! Also, boilermaker says - if you want to sweeten it then you could add some mint or stevia.


However, if it is some "weird packed-with-sugar, we make everything 100 x bigger and 100 x better by making it 100 x more calorie dense" thing that is made primarily with sugar and flavours (but has artifical tea leaves added in to give it that "real food" appearance) then you might want to give it a miss.

LOL - yeah Emma, that's pretty much what Lipton is However, they do have a sugar free one. It's a powdered drink mix. Personally I sun steep green tea and add splenda.and ice

Originally Posted by Jodi

Personally I sun steep green tea and add splenda.and ice

Little Miss Fancy Pants

Originally Posted by The Monkey Man

Little Miss Fancy Pants

haha, that looks just like her too!

yeah, Lipton is that powder, flavored, sweetened stuff you put in cold water and drink. but goddamn it, i guess i cant drink that either.

get unsweetened and add splenda? doesnt that thing give you diarrhea?

this is a sad day for me. having to give up iced tea on top of everything else.

hello water. :sad:

Is Splenda Really As Safe As They Claim It to Be?

As of 2005, only six human trials have been conducted on Splenda (sucralose). Of these six trials, only two of the trials were completed and published before the FDA approved sucralose for human consumption. The two published trials had a grand total of 36 total human subjects.

36 people sure doesn't sound like many, but wait, it gets worse, only 23 total were actually given sucralose for testing and here is the real killer:

The longest trial at this time had lasted only four days and looked at sucralose in relation to tooth decay, not human tolerance.

Why Do You Need to Know About Splenda?

Splenda, best known for its marketing logo, "made from sugar so it tastes like sugar,' has taken the sweetener industry by storm. Splenda has become the nations number one selling artificial sweetener in a very short period of time.

Between 2000 and 2004, the percentage of US households using Splenda products jumped from 3 to 20 percent. In a one year period, Splenda sales topped $177 million compared with $62 million spent on aspartame-based Equal and $52 million on saccharin-based Sweet 'N Low.

McNeil Nutritionals, in their marketing pitch for Splenda emphasizes that Splenda has endured some of the most rigorous testing to date for any food additive. Enough so to convince the average consumer that it is in fact safe. They claim that over 100 studies have been conducted on Splenda. What they don't tell you is that most of the studies are on animals.

Additional Concerns About Splenda Studies

There have been no long-term human toxicity studies published until after the FDA approved sucralose for human consumption. Following FDA approval a human toxicity trial was conducted, but lasted only three months, hardly the length of time most Splenda users plan to consume sucralose. No studies have ever been done on children or pregnant women.

Much of the controversy surrounding Splenda does not focus just on its safety, but rather on its false advertising claims. The competition among sweeteners is anything but sweet. The sugar industry is currently suing McNeil Nutritionals for implying that Splenda is a natural form of sugar with no calories.

Is It REALLY Sugar?

There is no question that sucralose starts off as a sugar molecule, it is what goes on in the factory that is concerning. Sucralose is a synthetic chemical that was originally cooked up in a laboratory. In the five step patented process of making sucralose, three chlorine molecules are added to a sucrose or sugar molecule. A sucrose molecule is a disaccharide that contains two single sugars bound together; glucose and fructose.


The chemical process to make sucralose alters the chemical composition of the sugar so much that it is somehow converted to a fructo-galactose molecule. This type of sugar molecule does not occur in nature and therefore your body does not possess the ability to properly metabolize it. As a result of this "unique" biochemical make-up, McNeil Nutritionals makes it's claim that Splenda is not digested or metabolized by the body, making it have zero calories.

It is not that Splenda is naturally zero calories. If your body had the capacity to metabolize it then it would no longer has zero calories.


How Much Splenda is Left In Your Body After You Eat It?

If you look at the research (which is primarily extrapolated form animal studies) you will see that in fact 15% of sucralose is absorbed into your digestive system and ultimately is stored in your body. To reach a number such as 15% means some people absorb more and some people absorb less. In one human study, one of the eight participants did not excrete any sucralose even after 3 days. Clearly his body was absorbing and metabolizing this chemical. That is what our bodies are supposed to do.


The bottom line is that we all have our own unique biochemical make-up. Some of you will absorb and metabolize more than others. If you are healthy and your digestive system works well, you may be at higher risk for breaking down this product in your stomach and intestines. Please understand that it is impossible for the manufacturers of Splenda to make any guarantees based on their limited animal data.


If you feel that Splenda affects you adversely, it is valid. Don't let someone convince you that it is all in your head. You know your body better than anyone else.

How to Determine if Splenda is Harming You

The best way to determine if Splenda or sucralose is affecting you is to perform an elimination/challenge with it. First eliminate it and other artificial sweeteners from your diet completely for a period of one to two weeks. After this period reintroduce it in sufficient quantity.


For example, use it in your beverage in the morning, and eat at least two sucralose containing products the remainder of the day. On this day, avoid other artificial sweeteners so that you are able to differentiate which one may be causing a problem for you. Do this for a period of one to three days. Take notice of how your body is feeling, particularly if it feels different than when you were artificial sweetener free.


Splenda May Still Be Harming You


If you complete the elimination/challenge trial described above and do not notice any changes then it appears you are able to tolerate Splenda acutely. However, please understand that you are not out of the woods yet.


The entire issue of long-term safety has never been established. Let's look at the facts again:


There have only been six human trials to date

The longest trial lasted three months

At LEAST 15% of Splenda is not excreted from your body in a timely manner

Considering that Splenda bears more chemical similarity to DDT than it does to sugar, are you willing to bet your health on this data? Remember that fat soluble substances, such as DDT, can remain in your fat for decades and devastate your health.


If the above facts don't concern because you believe the FDA would not ever allow a toxic substance into the market then read on.



Do You Really Believe These People Are Going to Protect You?


Please consider that the only organizations between you and potentially toxic side effects are the FDA and the manufacturers of sucralose (Tate & Lyle) and of Splenda (McNeil Nutritionals).


The FDA has a long standing history of ineffective screening and rampant conflict of interests as demonstrated in their inability to identify Vioxx as too dangerous to be on the market. This mistake costs 55,000 people their lives.


Now the point I want you to understand here, because it is really important, is that Splenda is not a drug and is only a food additive. As such the number of studies required to receive FDA approval is substantially less than drug. Vioxx had an order of magnitude of more comprehensive clinical trials than Splenda ever did, and despite this rigorous approval process it still killed 55,000 people.


So, now you have the primary concerns I have about Splenda and the choices is yours.

You really made your first post count, huh?

Originally Posted by RacingMust1999

Is Splenda Really As Safe As They Claim It to Be?

Read this post and see....

If you want to read about the toxicity studies they have done for splenda (and this is dated 2001, so I am sure they have done some since then) you can read this:

Overall Assessment of Toxicological Data
Sucralose was poorly absorbed after oral administration in humans.

The notified chemical was of very low acute oral toxicity in rats (LD50 > 16 000 mg/kg bw) and mice (LD50 > 10 000 mg/kg bw). The sucralose hydrolysis products, 4-CG and 1,6-DCF, when tested as an equimolar mixture were of low and very low acute oral toxicity in rats (LD50 = 1629 mg/kg bw) and mice (LD50 = 3499 mg/kg bw) respectively.

Sucralose was non mutagenic in three Ames tests and non clastogenic in human lymphocytes and rat bone marrow cells. Sucralose was weakly mutagenic in a mouse lymphoma mutation assay. 4-CG was non mutagenic in an Ames test and a mouse lymphoma assay. 4-CG was non clastogenic as determined by a human lymphocyte assay and a rat bone marrow test.
Although 1,6-DCF was found to be weakly mutagenic in 3/9 Ames tests and 2/5 mouse lymphoma assays, it was non clastogenic as determined by two rat bone marrow chromosomal aberration assay and a human lymphocyte test. 1,6-DCF did not induce sister chromatid exchanges or micronuclei in mouse bone marrow cells. A sex linked recessive lethal assay in Drosophilia melanogaster and a covalent DNA binding potential study in rats were negative. The sucralose hydrolysis products 4-CG and 1,6-DCF were not genotoxic as determined by a dominant lethal test in the mouse when tested as an equimolar mixture.

There was no evidence of treatment related neoplasm in rats fed a diet containing up to 3% sucralose (equivalent to 3000 mg/kg bw/day) during the carcinogenicity phase of a combined chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study and during a 104 week carcinogenicity study. No evidence of treatment related neoplasia was detected in rats dosed with an equimolar mixture
of the sucralose hydrolysis products, 4-CG and 1,6-DCF, at up to 2000 ppm in the diet for 104 weeks.

Decreased bodyweight gain was observed in rats and mice fed diets containing 3% sucralose for 104 weeks. This effect was not observed in beagle dogs dosed with 3% sucralose (equivalent to 750 mg/kg bw/day) in the diet for 52 weeks. A minimal increase in the incidence of renal pelvic mineralisation and epithelial hyperplasia lesions were detected in rats, primarily females treated with 3% sucralose. A significant decrease in erythrocyte count was detected in female mice dosed with 3% sucralose. Decreased bodyweight gain and a small increase in the incidence of hepatocellular clear cell foci was observed in female rats treated dose with an equimolar mixture of 4-CG and 1,6-DCF at 2000 ppm in the diet for 104
weeks. A number of studies have been conducted examining the acceptability and palatability of sucralose as a cause of reduced bodyweight gain when administered in drinking water or diet. It was determined that reduced bodyweight resulted from reduced palatability of diets containing sucralose. The dietary NOEL for mice and rats was determined to be 30 000 ppm
(equivalent to 1500 mg/kg bw/day). The dietary NOEL for the sucralose hydrolysis products was determined to be 600 ppm (equivalent to 30 mg/kg bw/day).

The notified chemical was not teratogenic in rats and rabbits, was not neurotoxic in mice and monkeys, and had no effect on male and female reproduction in rats, or insulin secretion and carbohydrate metabolism in normal and diabetic human volunteers. Sucralose was found to induce a reduction in thymus weight in rats dosed orally with 3000 mg/kg bw/day. The NOEL for immunological endpoints was 750 mg/kg bw/day.

The sucralose hydrolysis products, 4-CG and 1,6-DCF, when test as an equimolar mixture was not teratogenic, not neurotoxic, and had no effect on male and female reproduction.

The notified chemical is not determined to be a hazardous substance according to the NOHSC Approved Criteria for Classifying Hazardous Substances (NOHSC, 1999).

Or the whole report is here

There is also a really good overview of artificial sweeteners Here at BB.com if you want to read it.

ps: The usual concentration of sucralose in foods is 0.025-0.15 %.

Which is from This thread on Splenda.

well, after reading all of those, how bad can a cup of sweetened iced tea do to my body? lol

it really sucks to eat a sandwich and having to top it off with water guys. but thanks for all the replies. great info.

Originally Posted by Emma-Leigh

Read this post and see....



Which is from This thread on Splenda.

Have it TRVed by a porfesional remote viewer, to find out if it is really harmfull
that will settle the debate once and for all.

The Chemical name of splenda/sucralose is:Methanol.

Here is the definition of Methanol on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol

Uses:
plastics, plywood, paints, explosives,formaldehyde,
floor striper !



Health and safety
Methanol is toxic, as its metabolites formic acid and formaldehyde cause blindness and death. It enters the body by ingestion, inhalation, or absorption through the skin. Fetal tissue will not tolerate methanol. Dangerous doses will build up if a person is regularly exposed to fumes or handles liquid without skin protection. If methanol has been ingested, a doctor should be contacted immediately. The usual fatal dose: 100–125 mL (4 fl oz). Toxic effects take hours to start, and effective antidotes can often prevent permanent damage. This is treated using ethanol or fomepizole[1]. Either of these drugs acts to slow down the action of alcohol dehydrogenase on methanol, so that it is excreted by the kidneys rather than being transformed into toxic metabolites. Though it is miscible with water, methanol is very hard to wash off the skin; it is best to treat methanol like gasoline.

Symptoms of methanol ingestion are similar to those of intoxication: headache, dizziness, nausea, lack of coordination, confusion, drowsiness, followed by unconsciousness and death.

The ester derivatives of methanol do not share this toxicity.

Ethanol is sometimes denatured (adulterated), and thus made undrinkable, by the addition of methanol. The result is known as methylated spirit or "meths" (UK use). (The latter should not be confused with meth, a common abbreviation for methamphetamine.)

Pure methanol has been used in open wheel racing since the mid-1960's. Unlike petroleum fires, methanol fires can be extinguished with plain water (while methanol is lighter than water, they are miscible, and the addition of water will cause the fire to use its heat boiling the water). The decision was made shortly after the death of two drivers.

Ummm..splenda isn't methanol.

The last step in MAKING splenda requires methanol, but it isn't methanol itself.....

splenda is good. and one cup of sweetened tea may be bad, if it is everyday. splenda is perfectly fine. i usually sun brew or boil green tea, then mix it with lemon, and splenda, maybe some mint. or i drink mandarin green tea, no calories but has a hint of orange.

Originally Posted by emunah

Ummm..splenda isn't methanol.

The last step in MAKING splenda requires methanol, but it isn't methanol itself.....

To Clarify: its part paint thinner THEN, not 100% paint thinner ?

Originally Posted by Super Hulk

To Clarify: its part paint thinner THEN, not 100% paint thinner ?

Splenda is not methanol, nor is it part methanol... Nor is it paint thinner...

It is actually 1,6-dichloro-1,6-dideoxy-ß-D-fructofuranosyl-4-chloro-4-deoxy-a-D-galactose...

You can read about it: Here.

Originally Posted by RacingMust1999

Is Splenda Really As Safe As They Claim It to Be?

...

So, now you have the primary concerns I have about Splenda and the choices is yours.

This was probably lifted from the truthaboutsplenda.com website. It's a front for the American Sugar Association which doesn't like having it's product devalued by 600%.