1. "Whey" I use powdered egg protein when I want something like this, not that I knew this! PEP works great to hold an oil and water in suspension, too, like coconut oil, water, and cocoa powder. (Yum!)

2. The amount of sucralose in the experiments cited was HUGE! The smallest dose group was 100 mg/kg of body weight. The maximum "allowed" by the FDA is 5 mg/kg. It was so much that they had to gavage it in, i.e., force feed. ("Say, let's see what happens if we force a pound a day of salt into you.")

I'm surprised that you didn't catch this!

[Note from JS: the mystery is solved.  Look down seven posts, to my reply at 6:28 AM.]

Well, that made me toss the remaining L-glutamine supplement powder in my house. I haven't used it in ages (so it's probably "bad" anyway), but I wouldn't even want to eat it now knowing that it's made from wheat.

I'm happy I'm not a Splenda person. I've never figured out how they got away with the advertising slogan "Made from sugar so it tastes like sugar." My grandmother has tried to serve me items containing it several times. After tasting the weird flavor, I check the package and sure enough it's that darn sucralose.

@Paul, Sorry I guess J covered this while I was typing. 🙂

Wouldn't a Gnoll GROWL rather than WHOOP at such a discovery?

"Most whey powders are so heavily flavored and sweetened that they could be made of laundry detergent and no one would notice." Around here, I can buy Dean's heavy whipping cream, which has one ingredient: cream. All the other brands of "heavy whipping cream" first list "milk" (skim milk, if my memory serves me), then eventually "cream," along with several additives, one of which *IS* a detergent! I guess if you're going to make "whipping cream" out of skim milk, you have to have something to make it foam up when you whip it?

But it's all good, ya know, because the cream with the additives is lower in fat and lower in calories than the Dean's brand. . .

The Splenda study referenced seems to have been refuted, as per the item below. I have no way of knowing if this refutation is valid, or industry-influenced, but you should have noted it.

Expert panel report on a study of Splenda in male rats.
Brusick D, Borzelleca JF, Gallo M, Williams G, Kille J, Wallace Hayes A, Xavier Pi-Sunyer F, Williams C, Burks W.
Source
Independent Consultant, 123 Moody Creek Rd., Bumpass, VA 23024, USA. brusick41@aol.com
Abstract
A recent study in rats investigated the retail sweetener product, Granulated SPLENDA No Calorie Sweetener (Splenda) (Abou-Donia et al., 2008. Splenda alters gut microflora and increases intestinal P-glycoprotein and cytochrome P-450 in male rats. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health A, 71, 1415-1429), which is composed of (by dry weight) maltodextrin ( approximately 99%) and sucralose ( approximately 1%). The investigators reported that Splenda increased body weight, decreased beneficial intestinal bacteria, and increased the expression of certain cytochrome P450 (CYP450) enzymes and the transporter protein, P-glycoprotein (P-gp), the latter of which was considered evidence that Splenda or sucralose might interfere with the absorption of nutrients and drugs. The investigators indicated that the reported changes were attributable to the sucralose present in the product tested. An Expert Panel conducted a rigorous evaluation of this study. In arriving at its conclusions, the Expert Panel considered the design and conduct of the study, its outcomes and the outcomes reported in other data available publicly. The Expert Panel found that the study was deficient in several critical areas and that its results cannot be interpreted as evidence that either Splenda, or sucralose, produced adverse effects in male rats, including effects on gastrointestinal microflora, body weight, CYP450 and P-gp activity, and nutrient and drug absorption. The study conclusions are not consistent with published literature and not supported by the data presented.
PMID:
 
19567260
 
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Pasted from

eddie

I have access to only the abstract and don't know what the full review said. And I did note that I couldn't vouch for its veracity, and that the question of industry influence loomed. All that said, however, you seem to want to believe that Splenda is bad for us (and of course it may be) and therefore you reject the conclusions of this review without presenting any supporting evidence. Perhaps someone has access to the full review and can tell us what it says.

Why on earth fret and worry like this when the obvious solution is to just say no to supplements and yes to real food?

Or, when you "don’t have access to real food or the time to cook it", to intermittent fasting?