It appears you have not yet Signed Up with our community. To Sign Up for free, please click here....



Acne Message Board


Acne Board Index
Board Index > Acne | 0-9 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z


Hey all,
I have a question for you, why does it seem that the U.S. is usually the last of the ďbigĒ countries to ever change? National healthcare is in other countries, but not here. Improved factory farming practices are in other countries, but not here. Banning of certain chemicals and elements that have been found detrimental has been implemented, in other countries, but they are still allowed here!

Why does it seem that they are always trying to shove things that are bad for us ďdown our throatsĒ? Why do dermatologists give us substances that may be cancerous, cause birth defects, or load us full of antibiotics? Why do doctors, even some specialists, ignore our cries or give us more antibiotics? Why do our dentists shove mercury in our teeth and pump us full of fluoride? I just donít get, do any of you???

So instead of pointing fingers at our usual suspects, lets talk about oral hygiene:

Did you know that Mercury is toxic? That [B]itís toxicity was known long before its use began in amalgam fillings (1829)[/B]? As a result, it can lead to a variety of health problems, possibly even acne (reduces ability to utilize zinc - zinc deficiency). Did you know it could elect to choose amalgam or composite (silicon dioxide) fillings usually for the same price? Thankfully, over time Iíve replaced all but one of my amalgam fillings, and this oneís about to go soon too.

Of course, this leads us to why we need fillings in the first place. Usually itís because we have cavities or we cracked our tooth, right? Well what is it that they push for us all to use? [B]Flouride![/B] Thatís right up until we reach a certain age fluoride shots are covered by our dental insurance. After that we have to pay for them, but thatís OK, because some of our communities have fluoridated water (started in 1945), and if yours doesnít your toothpastes or other dental products are guaranteed to be full of it. In terms of brushing our teeth, we canít escape fluoride unless you make your own toothpastes or use a natural/specialty brand that excludes it. Yet other countries like China, Sweden, & most of Europe have BANNED fluoridation or the use of fluoride entirely!

Why would they ban something so ďbeneficial?Ē Itís supposed to help make our teeth stronger and fight cavities (by 0.6%). It has the ability to (mimic and) increase IGF-1 levels (remember how bad this is for Acne?). It has the ability to mimic Thyroid Stimulating Hormone (TSH, Thyrotropin) thus also activating the production of Follicle Stimulating Hormone (FSH) and Luteinizing Hormone (LH). [U]Minerals can either increase our decrease our hormones and nutrients[/U] and Flouride is one that happens to be good at messing with our hormones. In fact, depending on the amount of fluoride in your area, you could be consuming enough to cause [B]Hypothyroidism[/B]. This is the form that has been correlated with Iodine (fluoride decreases this) in some complex way, and also associated with Acne. How many of you are Hypothyroid? How many of you are [B]PCOS[/B]?

Hereís the thing though, while fluoride has ben found to have some slight protection against cavities, it makes our teeth and bones weaker in excess. Since itís [U]increased[/U] usage bone cancer, hip fractures and arthritis have increased! Not to mention, there are some that feel that fluoride, increases cavities (cause it makes our teeth weaker?) and I donít know what to think for I do all I can to prevent cavities, dental floss, mouthwash, toothpastes (w/fluoride), and a tongue scraper and the cavities still prevailed. Over the years I've eaten far less sugar, etc and for 1 year used a product called Enamalon (polished wonderfully), which was supposed to add calcium back, and STILL got cavities! When I found out I was Insulin Resistant and I changed my diet, I also drastically reduced my candy and fake juice & soda (never), and even 100% fruit juice consumption to near none, andÖ I still got a cavity. So, looking at the number of fillings and problems with my parentsí teeth, this made me wonder if a getting cavities was inheritable. The dentists say your teeth structure can make it more likely to acquire cavities, while others say that you can inherit cavity-causing bacteria.

The sad thing is, that to try and prevent cavities, we could all either [B]reduce[/B] our sugar consumption or get [U]sealants[/U] (are these bad?). By the time I learned about these, last year, I had to pay the full price ($28 per tooth) for what I got, but even at full price, sealants are better deal than getting a filling. Fillings are not cheap ($40 Ė $100 each), maybe thatís why I was never given the option of getting them, I had to ask.

This also brings me toÖXylitol, the Anti-cavity Sugar-Free Sugar! (LOL)

Out of curiosity, how many of you have [I]heard[/I] of this product, and if so what do you think about it?

I first learned about it a week or so ago, under the Natural Sugars thread, from Prometheus, and am soo grateful! Iíve always wondered if those of us with acne, were more likely to have cavities. Or if those that were Diabetic Type I, Type II or Insulin Resistant were also more likely (anyone know?) to have cavities or carry the bacteria. Of course, some say that acne can be defined as Skin Diabetes so reducing all the unnatural sugar you can, especially if youíve found ďsugarĒ to be a culprit for you, would be beneficial!
Prometheus,
LOL, thanks for answer my questions. I am reading up on Polyols now and discovering that most have a laxative effect. What makes it tricky is that the amount varies for each type of polyol ;-) What I read on xylitol was that it may cause an effect if consumed too quickly during the first 2 weeks of product usage (body needs time to adjust). Since all I have is gum and toothpaste, I shouldn't have to worry much...

Also considering that I'm naturally more at risk and that all polyols produce little - no insulin response and prevent dental caries, I'll need to bring more of these into our house. Although, I've heard that mannitol and sorbitol are the worst at producing a laxative effect (in excess), is there anything else wrong with them? I found studies that showed that Xylitol was better at sorbitol for preventing dental caries, but are you aware of why these aren't pushed as hard as xylitol for oral hygeine?

I have no intentions of loading up on sweet stuff, but it would be good to know what they do put in stuff I may occasionally use. Like I purchased that new Orange flavored mouthwash by Listerine only to find out it contains Sucralose and sorbitol. Now one of those is giving me a slight bitter taste and well, it just tastes a bit too sweet too.

Have you ever used sucralose? It sounds wonderful in the sense that it does some of the same things as xylitol with no laxative effect. My dad uses Aspartame and I'm looking for anything else that would be better and convenient (packets) So far I haven't found anything against it, do you know of anything evil about it?

Oh yeah and I found out that since xylitol is made in Finland under some comlicate process, that's why it's more expensive and why it's not likely to be use widley here in the U.S. However they are working on using Corn as the base to derive xylitol from and then later, possibly use genetic modification, so maybe one day it will be more popular....
In addition to the research I quoted above, there is more...

"Fluorides cause "zinc deficiency"."

Check out the International Anti-Fluoridation Database online to see if your county fluoridates its water.
[QUOTE=Abbey32]Splenda and sugar...hmm, which is worse? Look at all the bad things sugar does!

As far as Xylitol...I never heard of it until they had a low carb cheescake on QVC made by Juniors NY Cheesecakes. It has Xylitol in it and they take it from corncobs. Never tasted it but how bad can it be...coming from corn cobs?[/QUOTE]

Abbey and Ejonz,
You both asked an excellent question and this was why I'm researching more on Splenda. It sounds good on paper, but when I typed in Dangers & Splenda in the search engine, I finally got the negatives.

First of all, it's not natural to your body. It's supposed to be composed of sugar (sugar cane & milk sugar), only they replaced the Hydrogen atoms with Chlorine atoms. None of the Polyols are formed this way, they all sugar alcohols, with no chlorine involved. Not to mention, has anyone heard of Dioxin induced acne, known as Chloracne? Would this aggrevate the problem for some of us?

Chlorine will kill you if you consume enough of it. It is considered hazardous, toxic and carcinogenic and by unknowingly (the foods don't carry a warning label) ingesting something that actually has chlorine attached to it, we are only increasing our levels to perhaps a toxic amount. After all, it's used to kill bacteria in our drinking water, surely at some amount, it must begin to cause us some damage too.

Now the concentrations found in the foods we eat, drinking water, and pool water (that you may drink) vs. the amounts given to you in Splenda, I don't know yet. My guess is that you'll get more chlorine from Splenda and when you compound all of that, what's the total amount? Already people that are allergic to chlorine can't consume this without having bad reactions! Those that have galactosemia may also have problems tolerating this since it's made from Galactose.

Of course this is where chemistry comes into play for a single element alone can be more dangerous than when it is combined with another element and vice versa. Chlorine is safe when bound to some products and unsafe when bound to others. Since they've only been studying Splenda for 20 years, they don't have all the answers and as to how this could hurt us or the environment.

Now, there are supposed to be 100 studies on Sucralose, but doing an abstract search, I only found 70. Of those, some that were most interesting to me, were not available to read. So, this is the only study I've found that supports that Sucralose (along with other artificial sweetners & additives) attribute to DNA damage:
[url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12160896[/url] Furthermore, they advertise that sucralose is undigestable because it's inert, but it is still absorbable. There are studies showing that, at least 15% of this is absorbed in normal GI tracts. As such, scientists are actually planning on using Sucralose and other sweetners to help determine those that would have Leaky Gut Syndrome or an damaged gasterointestinal tract (isn't this one of the arguments for why acne sufferers have problems?). Of course, there's plenty of pseudoscience (testimonies, experiences) that have stated that this causes similar mental disturbances as do the other "bad" artificial sweetners.

These are all natural sugars and yesÖbad for our teeth, etc:
[B]Sucrose[/B] = Glucose + Fructose (sugar cane, table sugar)
[B]Fructose[/B] = Fructose (fruit sugar)
[B]Lactose[/B] = Glucose + Galactose (milk sugar)
[B]Maltose[/B] = Glucose + Glucose (malt sugar)

These are the substitutes:
[B]Asparatame[/B] (Nutrasweet) - L-alpha-aspartyl-L-phenylalanine methyl ester

[B]Saccharine[/B] (Sweet & Low) -1,2-Benzisothiazol-3(2H)-one, 1,1-dioxide

[B]Acesulfume K[/B]

[B]Sucralose[/B] (Splenda) Ė 1,6-dichloro-1,6-dideoxy-beta-D-fructofuranosyl-4-chloro-4-deoxy-alpha-D-galactopyranose is certified to be only 98% pure, what is in the other 2%? Itís not maltodextrin (is it?), thatís the bulk powder used as a filler, since 100% sucralose (of the 98%) isnít sold in the U.S.

[B]Stevia[/B] - this is not a sugar but an herb that is naturally sweet. Pure Stevioside is sweeter (100x Ė 300x) than sugar. It is also sweeter than using the whole herb. Now, the powder form and in excess, can taste bitter. Some say that it has an anise or licorice flavor, I say it tastes just like Aspartame. If you can push the bitterness aside, it has the ability to help with blood sugar levels, etc. While its been used for decades, if not a few centuries with no negative reports (anecdotal evidence), there are 2 studies (1985 & 1996) that have found it to be mutagenic when metabolically activated in rats. They donít know [I]how[/I] it affects humans (isnít there a study?) and they donít know what part of it is activated in that way. Also, while it is non-cariogenic (cuz itís not a sugar), it doesnít prevent bacteria from using sugar when it gets a chance (fruit & other carbohydrates), therefore you may want to combine this with xylitol if that is a concern to you.

[B]Xylitol[/B] - , unfortunately nothing is perfect and there's some rumors going on about this ďsugarĒ as well. At the moment, I'm not worried about it for it's a natural part of the human body to produce of xylitol (15g worth), but since not everything thatís natural to the body is good for it (in excess), I intend to find those studies. [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=6592775[/url] In terms of laxative effect, itís been used in Finland for 30 years and other countries and, based on how often they must be using it, the laxative effect may wear off. They state that itís a temporary effect that should disappear after 2 weeks (when body adjusts to it) and somewhere else I read that we shouldnít exceed 60g/day (2.2 oz) to prevent this. Itís supposed to be equally as sweet as sugar, but some people have found it to be almost 2x as sweet (so use less). I have the gums and toothpaste and itís not too sweet at all. I really canít taste a difference and itís definitely not bitter. =)

[B]Polyols[/B] Ė Lactitol, Maltitol, Sorbitol, Mannitol, Xylitol and thereís 2 others
The polyols, are what we are hoping are healthier and more natural sugar substitutes. Unlike the other sweetners ranging from 200x - 1000x sweeter than sugar (is that the problem?), their sweetness varies from 50% - 100% as sweet as sugar. These are all alcohol sugars formed from their sugar counterpart (its in the name): Lactose, Maltose, Sucrose, Mannose, Xylose, etc. Xylitol is the [B]only[/B] one that prevents dental carries [U]and [/U] doesnít allow bacteria to feed off of it. The others prevent cavities slightly, but since bacteria can still slowly digest them, they are not the prime choice for dental health.

So as far as the negatives vs. the positives, the FDA approved all of them. The problem is that when tested on rats, they are usually taking very high doses which, in a normal setting, that amount wouldn't occur in humans. I suppose that's why the FDA allowed all the other artificial sweetners except for Cimetidine (1 bad study and it was banned), despite the few negatives studies that were also found for the others. Regardless, all I have to do is taste some of those artificial sugars (knowingly or unknowingly) and Iíve got a headache and thereís research to support that, among other things. Yet, the FDA says ďthereís no toxic effects,Ē scary isnít it? Itís really interesting that the ones that hit the shelf hard are those that are really bad vs. the ones that give you a temporary or constant laxative effect (donít consume it often). So, if you canít get around sugar (usually canít), I would go with the ones that far out way any of the possible negatives, those that provide additional benefits.

Take care =)





All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:00 PM.





© 2022 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved.
Do not copy or redistribute in any form!