How Does Glucose Inhibit Sucrose Experiment

Thesis: Overall, recent studies have shown that sugar substitutes isn’t and can cause potential health problems.

Sugar is classified as a carbohydrate, making it an important source and provider of energy. Carbohydrates can be further separated into three sections: sugars, oligosaccharides and polysaccharides. Additionally, sugars can be classified as the following: monosaccharides; disaccharides and polyols. Common monosaccharides, individual units of sugar, are glucose, fructose, and galactose, whereas some ordinary disaccharides, two bonded units of sugar, are sucrose, lactose, and maltose. In the comparison of sugar and stevia, sucrose will be used, as

The use of artificial sweeteners in beverages and food has been on a steady rise since 1969, the year it was authorized in the United States of America. The popularity of artificial sweeteners has been on a rise because of the benefit that it is a zero calorie sweetener .Even though artificial sweeteners have some great benefits many scientists believe that it causes adverse effects such as cancer, weight gain and depression. I strongly believe that consumers are not aware of the side effects of artificial sweeteners hence the increase in consumption since 1969.

The sucrose concentration in the solution was varied to 10%, 20%, 30%, 40% and 50% in order to examine the effect of varying sucrose concentration on the CO2 production of yeast cells.

One solution is using sugar substitutes like sucralose, aspartame, saccharin and xylitol to replace regular sugar (sucrose), which can help all Canadians who have sweet teeth, for keeping away from CVD and obesity. The purpose of sugar substitutes (artificial sweeteners) is to imitate the taste of regular sugar (sucrose), in bottommost calories subscription. (Larsen, 2012) As the result people can enjoy the sweetness of food and also control the amount of sugar intake at the same time. Short responding time is another benefit of artificial sweeteners.

This research study focuses on how aspartame affects the human body, particularly the brain. It includes the different classes of sweetener, their characteristics and their difference from aspartame. It also explains why multi-national corporations prefer to use aspartame as sugar substitute over the other varieties of sweeteners. Lastly, it details the compatibility of aspartame to beverages and the standard amount of sweeteners in instant goods set by the World Government. However, this study does not cover the possible sources of treatment to the problems caused by aspartame. This research is limited to explaining the overall concept of aspartame as a sweetener.

This primary article aimed to determine whether Wistar rats had a change in weight and food intake after consuming non- nutritive sweeteners and sucrose. 30 Wistar rats weighing about 200-300 g were taken for this experiment. They were kept in a 44 x 34 x 16 cm cage to control their activity, and divided into 3 groups of 10 Wistar rats, where each group was given either aspartame, sucrose or saccharin incorporated with yoghurt and water. This experiment was of 12 weeks, after which their body mass was measured. The final mass was determined by substracting the basal mass from the gained mass. It could be seen that the Wistar rats consuming aspartame and saccharin gained more weight compared to the Wistar rats feeding sucrose. It could be concluded

Splenda is used every day when I drink my coffee so I made my choice to refute all things said about this nonnutritive sweetener. Did you know one packet of sweetener is 600 times sweeter than sugar? How much sugar does is take to get your tea just right? Nonnutritive sweetener has a few benefits, first it calorie free, instead of using mounds of sugar we can use maybe less than half a packet and you got the sweet taste. I refute this article, based on research I came across “Toxicity of Sucralose in Humans: A Review” the article providing information for the toxicology safety for the consumer use.

exacerbating the problem even further. NNS consist of a variety of no calorie sweeteners found mostly in diet foods. Some of the popular names of NNS are aspartame, sucralose and saccharin. A survey in 2008 showed 12.5% of kids and 24.1% of adults were consuming these NNS, which was an almost a 2-fold increase compared to 1999 (Shankar, Ahuja, & Sriram, 2013). Even though NNS are USFA approved, their safety has been questioned. For example, 100% of industry funded studies have concluded aspartame is safe while 92% of independently funded studies reported aspartame can cause adverse health effects (Walton, 1999). In a letter from the industry trying to defend their product it was stated that sucralose is extremely stable and avoids absorption while being digested where it can then be quickly

In this paper, I will discuss the impact that artificial sweeteners are having on the American Diet. I will explore the artificial sweetener Sucralose, in detail. I will describe, in brief, the history and uses of Sucralose. I will explore the effects that Sucralose has the human body, and some of the controversies surrounding this additive. Finally, I will present my argument that Sucralose, in moderation is a safe alternative to table sugar.

Some of the artificial sweeteners, like Rebaudioside A, was most recently approved by the FDA, this artificial sweetener is highly pure compound originally found in Stevia plants. Some of them can be very beneficial. Truvia, for instance, is a combination of Stevia extract and a sugar alcohol called erythritol. Examples of sugar alcohol, sorbitol, mannitol, xylitol, erythritol, and d-tagatose. The sugar alcohol xylitol can also prevent tooth decay and loss of teeth. Stevia is a similar sugar to PureVia, Truvia, Sun Crystals, and Stevia in the Raw. Another type of artificial sweetener is Splenda, Splenda is a commercial name that is owned by American companies, as well as all other artificial sweeteners Splenda has zero calories (Artificial

There has been great controversy ever since the emergence of artificial sweeteners on the market. Currently, thousands of food and drink products contain one of the five FDA-approved artificial sweeteners: aspartame, sucralose, saccharin, acesulfame K, and neotame. All have controversy to their use due to their long-term health risks. The FDA should not be declaring these chemical compounds as safe for consumption. There is not enough evidence to suggest the complete safety of these products in humans. Conversely, substantial evidence shows regular consumption poses enormous risks to humans. This review lists and analyzes specific examples supporting my claim

The debate between naturally derived sugars and low-calorie artificial sweeteners has been going on for years now. As our population’s obesity rate grows every year and health concerns related to weight-control grows along with it, natural sugar is scrutinized and we are told to keep away from it as it is our enemy. Over the last couple of decades, we have been introduced to more and more varieties of artificial sweeteners promising to deliver the same sweetness or even more sweetness than natural sugar (some offer as much as 200 times more sweetness than sugar) but with a much lower calorie content, or some even no calories at all. Artificial sweeteners such as Splenda, Sweet n’ Low, NutraSweet, and Equal have become popular as “better alternatives” to table sugar, promising to help battle weight gain and actually assist in losing weight. However, does this make it the healthier option? As with all things, both natural sugar and artificial sugar have their pros and cons, but in order to find the best option in regards to our health and futures, it’s important to weigh them according to scientific findings and research.

There are natural sweeteners out there that are better for you, and one of them is stevia.

Controversies, Infobase Learning, 26 July 2010, http://icof.infobaselearning.com/recordurl.aspx?ID=2311. Accessed 20 Feb. 2017. This source was written in order to discuss the benefits and harms of using artificial sweeteners in place of sugar. This article was published in the Issues and Controversies database; therefore it has been used in academic writing previously. We can conclude that the source is unbiased and credible. It compared the high health risks of sugar to the very low health risks of artificial sweeteners. Also extensively covered, is the history and development of artificial sweeteners, and the opposing opinions on both. This source is lengthier than many similar ones, and contains more factual information and research-backed claims. Of all the sources, this one supports the thesis the most by providing