CSN Login
Members Online: 2

You are here

Sugar vs Splenda, and how much daily

Love2Cats's picture
Posts: 127
Joined: Dec 2010

When I am too weak, or tired to make food for myself, I like to be able to use Carnation Instant Breakfast to help supplement my diet. I know that sugar can feed cancer, but some sugar is necessary for all cells in the body. I am not sure if I should buy the no sugar type, or if I should buy the type made with Splenda.

I researched as best I could on the internet, but there are tons of websites saying Sucralose (Splenda) is ok, and just as many which state it is harmful.

Also, I tried to find a daily recommended sugar intake limit guide, so I don't overdo the sugar in my diet, but I can't find any guidelines or suggestions on the limit of how much sugar a cancer patient should ingest in a day.

What's your opinion/suggestion?

Thanks for the help.


Buckwirth's picture
Posts: 1272
Joined: Jun 2010

If I remember correctly you are somewhere in the middle of your Folfox treatments, right?

When I was on Folfox + Avastin my morning drink was coffee blended with chocolate protein powder, and my other drinks were cane sugar sodas with no ice. I ate lots of burgers and milkshakes in my off weeks. End result was all but one of my lymph nodes scanned clear, my tumor showed great shrinkage and my CEA went to 1.5. Along with that, my blood counts stayed up in the normal range throughout my treatment.

Per my oncologist the three things I should worry about in my diet were protein, iron and calories.

thxmiker's picture
Posts: 1282
Joined: Oct 2010

We changed over to Stevia. It is a natural occurring sugar that is 300 times stronger then sugar cane. It also has significantly less calories.


Best Always, mike

Anonymous user (not verified)

This comment has been removed by the Moderator

lisa42's picture
Posts: 3661
Joined: Jul 2008

Splenda is made from chemicals- you want to find a sugar replacement that is natural.
Good choices are stevia, xylitol, or blue agave nectar. I know many people who use stevia. Personally, I don't care for it, but I love the blue agave nectar. It looks like honey but has a thinner consistency.

Those are my thoughts-

CherylHutch's picture
Posts: 1399
Joined: Apr 2007

And just a reminder about Stevia as a sweetener/supplement.... do not be fooled into buy the white powdered stevia. The stevia you want is the natural ORGANIC stevia. It is green, not white. The white is stevia that has been bleached of all nutrients and goodness so you may as well just be using processed sugar or chemical sweeteners.

I, personally, don't care for the taste of Stevia, but that's just me... others find it totally acceptable. But when I see people using the white, I feel sorry that the "diet industry" is so misleading all to make a buck. They bleached the heck out of stevia so that it looks like sugar and the other sweeteners... hence sells better.


scouty's picture
Posts: 1976
Joined: Apr 2004

You asked me about this before Cheryl and I forgot to answer you after I talked to my friends that grow and make both green and white stevia products.

They say that white stevia is not bleached but just a concentrate/extract form of the plant leaf.

I cut and pasted the below:

"Green powder is made up of the whole stevia leaf. The white powder is the sweetening portion of the stevia leaf removed through a water process and crystallized. This is called stevia extract or concentrate, it can be up to 400 times sweeter than sugar. The green powder contains more nutrients and phytonutrients and also has a stronger licorice flavouring".

The flavor of stevia is different and I find that if you let it sit with whatever you are mixing it with for a while it gets much better. I know that when I use it to sweeten my jellies and desserts, I let it sit with the berries (or whatever) at room temp for 2 hours before I cook/use it. You can taste it after sitting to your liking. It brings out the natural sweetness of whatever you mix it with so letting it sit really changes the taste.

Lisa P.

CherylHutch's picture
Posts: 1399
Joined: Apr 2007

Yes and no, Lisa... I think we both are on the same page, but with slightly different information... here's my cut and paste, which, chemo brain, I don't remember if I did this before or not:

Stevia is a green leaf plant. If you are buying a "white" powder, you are not buying a completely natural unaltered stevia plant powder. White powder stevia has none of the health benefits of green leaf stevia powder, only the sweetness. Also, the white powder is extremely concentrated, therefore most often the white powder products contain "fillers". Remember to check any green leaf stevia powders to make sure that they are organically grown. There is no good reason to consume chemicals with your all natural organic green leaf stevia powder.

Suede Hills Organic Green Stevia

I just bring this up because some folk find that if they just pick up something that says "Stevia" they are getting something that is healthy... but like everything else, that is not always true. Again... gotta do research and it unfortunately takes time and effort to do that.

In all fairness... as much as I see the good in going organic and making some dietary lifestyle changes (I'm not arguing the point at all... I actually agree with them)... actually doing them has not worked for me. Call it lack of willpower, or lack of taste (I really don't care for a lot of the "healthy" flavours... I can do it on the short term basis, but have never been successful doing it longterm. This is not to say I don't agree with it... but that I can't honestly say that it is the best for me when I know I don't stick to it :/


2bhealed's picture
Posts: 2085
Joined: Dec 2001

The whole sugar feeding cancer issue has to do with insulin uptake. Yes, cells need "sugar" in the form of glucose, but it's better to get your glucose from natural foods rather than refined sugars that lack any kind of nutrition. Sugar that's refined spike blood glucose levels but when you get glucose from foods that help keep blood sugars more stable, foods that have fiber, it's all around more healthful.

Sugar is also acidic and cancer likes acid rather than alkaline--most veggies are alkaline.

If you want something simple and easy why not put your blender to work with a fruit smoothie that you add protein powder, flax oil, and flax seeds (flax is a natural cancer fighter and has wonderful omega 3's and fiber).

Really, a cancer patient shouldn't ingest ANY refined sugar whatsoever. That's not just my opinion, that's a pretty common opinion from all natural healers that I know. Don't ask your oncologist--if your clinic is anything like the one in Minnesota that I went to for a consult, they serve their chemo patients DONUTS!! I never went back to that clinic (or doctor) and opted to NOT do any chemo at all but instead opted to do CHEMIA which is "juice of the plant". I juiced organic veggies instead.

Hope this helps.

peace, emily who was Stage III colon cancer and 9 1/2 years cancer free.

Love2Cats's picture
Posts: 127
Joined: Dec 2010

Thanks to all who responded. That was an excellent crash course in sweeteners/sugar. I will definitely make good use of all the info you gave me.


Scambuster's picture
Posts: 973
Joined: Nov 2009

You don't need to add sugar to 'any' foods. Your body converts Carbohydrates into sugar perfectly well all by itself. Simple Carbs convert very quickly (too quickly) so you are better to eat 'complex carbs' which create a steady flow of sugar to your cells. Processed sugar is bad for you as it oversupplies the body with sugar, messes with your insulin levels, creates an acidic ienvironment on your body, creates inflammation and provides any cancer cells with easy food. The high sugar and high processed food diets (simple carbs) is probably one reason many of us got sick in the first place, so eliminating these foods is a smart step to 1. recover and 2. prevent recurrence. Artificial sweeteners are nasty chemicals so best to avoid completely.

It may be hard to give up your sweet stuff, but when it is a life or not question, the answer should be easy. Once you kick the sugar habit, you won't miss it anymore (no more cravings) and be able to have all your food and drinks without added sugar. If you are in recovery and weak, find a good vege based nutritional supplement to get you through. The results are worth the effort.


PS Simple carbs are mainly the processed foods so all stuff made with white flour like: white breads, pastas, cakes, biscuits etc Also white rice. There is very little fibre value in simple carbs.

Complex carbs include whole grain foods, like brown rice, whole grain breads and whole grain pastas and many vegetables. nearly all "Anti-Cancer' literature now advocate these facts and recommend these changes to your diet.

Buckwirth's picture
Posts: 1272
Joined: Jun 2010

But there is no real science to back it up.

check out the site below:


I'm probably going to get flamed by the true believers, but I will go with the science any day of the week.

Lovekitties's picture
Posts: 3270
Joined: Jan 2010

Thanks for the link. It was an informative read.

Most of us could probably use a better balanced diet, more water and more exercise just for overall health.

Marie who loves kitties

Scambuster's picture
Posts: 973
Joined: Nov 2009

The Science is there if you look. If you stay with the FDA and big Pharma Science, then I would say it's a poor choice.

There is very good book around called 'The China Study'. It should disspell most myths as it covers the historical change in diet in the West and in Asia and correlates with diseases and the rampant onset of CV Disease, Diabetes and Cancer. (PM me and I will email you the book)

I compare the current medical view of diet now to their view of Smoking in the 50's and 60's when Doctors Endorsed Cigarettes. Science can only go so far in 'proving' 100% that a reaction to one subtance causes an effect such as disease. Interest group will influence 'their Science' to their advantage.

A young person who see these ads will find it hard to believe. One day, we will have the same reaction to the current views on diet an it's impact on our health.



Buckwirth's picture
Posts: 1272
Joined: Jun 2010

It was the science that changed the law that made the tobacco companies stop running those ads.

Did the tobacco companies confuse the issue with junk science? Yes, but only in the public arena. In the arena of true science, that of published journals, academic scrutiny and repeatable results no one fell for the crap that was coming from the tobacco institute.

We talk about "big Pharma", but no one mentions "big supplement" or "big alternative". These are multi-billion dollar industries with little or no government oversite, and without the check that comes from "big insurance", which tells "big pharma" we will only pay for it if you can prove that it works.

pete43lost_at_sea's picture
Posts: 3908
Joined: Nov 2010


Even though I support BIG FRUIT AND VEG I would also love to see more science and proof of the alternatives.

I ask whats an alternative ?
One onc does not believe in OXY another does. Is OXY alternative ?
Is vitamin D3 an alternative ? its pretty cheap

so little funding going into trials into a potential beneficial treatment.

To be honest I would like BIG GOV to keep all the BIG's in line, but it will never happen, not in this lifetime.

I hope you never get flamed for expressing your opinions, even if I don't agree with them.
The only flame you will get will probably be on your burgers from burger king. god I miss them.

what I value here is the peaceful exchange of opinions and information above all else and of course the support.

As for the sugsr question my vote is NEITHER as well and for good measure try and cutout or reduce coffee and tea and alcohol as well.



Scambuster's picture
Posts: 973
Joined: Nov 2009


My current account say I have paid somewhere north of $300,000USD to date for Conventional treatments and Doctors (In the last 18mths). My current account for all alternatives, supplements, 3 Naturopaths, Acupuncture and healers $5000. No further comment required here about where the money goes.

In Australia and HK, the Alternative Practitioners are closely scrutinized and quacks are usually weeded out. Rogue Doctors Medical Quacks are in the same boat right ? (If we are comparing apples to apples) so they have plenty to answer for. You may also wish to know that Doctors kill more people in the US each year than guns do, which is totted at over 120,000 per year. Nice.

Big PHARMA are well renowned for releasing 'selective' results of their drug research in order to gain FDA approval. The fine print on their drug packaging pretty much tells you that taking their stuff can maim and even kill you. The results of the drugs success are patchy at best, especially in the highly lucrative Chemo Market.

You just have to read thru these sad pages to hear about the failures every day. Most of the posts on these pages are how to live through and survive the effects of Chemo and Rads and Surgery, not the cancer. Makes me shake my head and wonder. For that reason, we should be lobbying to have money spent on the many alternative treatments and therapies that have consistently shown promise, have cast historical evidence of effectiveness, yet get swept under the carpet, get outlawed, or ignored.

Not only have I witnessed many people who have beaten their cancer with alternatives -both with only alternatives or with a complimentary approach, but I am experiencing the effects myself. I just don't believe Doctors have the answers I need, nor the scope to work 'with' the body so it can play its' part in dealing with disease. The day will come, and not a day too soon, when diet and nutrition will be an integral part of treatment. Until then I will continue to share the positive stories and information, so all people have a more informed choice to get themselves well again.

If I tell people that eating raw food, going vegan, cutting out harmful foods, I am confident I will not harm them, and in fact help them a great deal . Recommending people consume, fatty foods, fried junk, fatty meats (Well cooked burgers!), thick shakes etc, I now feel is just plain negligence. I was once a consumer of the same so I cast my stones with the hindsight of someone who used to throw caution to the wind, and hopefully foresight from extensive and continuing study, to find the best ways through. THere will alway be 'for and against' in any topic discussed by man, politics, religion and health. I just look to where I see the best way from those who have walked this path, gained knowledge, looked at their agenda and common sense behind much of it, and then take my steps forward.

No slagging match intended Blake, just speaking my mind with the intention to benefit people trying to beat a horrible disease.

Best Regds


Buckwirth's picture
Posts: 1272
Joined: Jun 2010

In Hong Kong? Or is that the value placed on your treatments by National Health?

Did NH cover the $5k as well, or was that out of your own pocket?

"You may also wish to know that Doctors kill more people in the US each year than guns do..."

Nice, you know that most of that is in elective surgery, right? And if you want to compare "apples to apples" you would compare that to Australia in x per 1000 population. Otherwise it is just a number you pulled out of the air.

Did you know that the overall deaths by cancer is going down? Two things account for that, one is better drugs, the other is more early detection.

"Not only have I witnessed many people who have beaten their cancer with alternatives -both with only alternatives or with a complimentary approach..."

I am happy for you and for them, however, anecdotal evidence is not science and has no place in cancer research or treatment.

Are you aware that Chemotherapy is not a cure for cancer? It is a treatment to help prolong life, or to aid in shrinking tumors so that the only real cure (surgery) can be performed, or as a preventative after surgery to increase the odds against metastasis.

"Recommending people consume..."

Is a violation of the T&C's of this forum. That said, there is no question that a healthy diet cuts down on your cancer risk. Does it help your body fight an existing cancer? Right now the evidence says no. My bodies needs in treatment are very different from its needs when I was not in treatment. Out of treatment I was worried I weighed too much, in treatment I need to worry about getting enough calories. Out of treatment I want to load up on anti-oxidant rich foods. In treatment I should avoid them. Out of treatment I can limit Protein in my diet. In treatment I need as much protein as I can get. Same goes for Iron. In that way, diet and nutrition are already integral to treatment.

No slagging match. And this will be my last post on the subject.

Sonia32's picture
Posts: 1077
Joined: Mar 2009

Lol sorry just had a bad start to the morning (annoying post dude), grr wasn't at you Blake. :-p

My opinion as I said in my post to you cancer is cancer no matter what stage. As John23 would say (might be wrong John but it's early in the UK lack of sleep), cancer is a cell gone wrong.I know chemo is not a cure for cancer it just either mops up or prolongs your life. I was told by an onc the only cure they have is for leukemia. Everyone is different, and we react differently. For some alternatives might be right, for others it might just be a diet of fast food etc, heck even religion. :-p

There is no easy answer.

Just my 10p (or 20 cent ;-) worth.


Subscribe to Comments for "Sugar vs Splenda, and how much daily"