Anyone use it? I use it a lot but have heard some negative things about it lately. I never used the other artificial sweetners but I do use Splenda. Do you think it's bad for you? I try and stay all natural but I cut down my caloric intake with Splenda.
Splenda
- Thread starter buster
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,591
Just because chlorocarbons are bad for rats doesn't mean they are necessarily harmful to humans. You know how sensitive rats are, right?
Does Splenda cause Harry Nuttz or something? I general avoid fake foods, but I'm not sure what the studies indicate.
The studies indicate that they were probably funded by manufacturers of competing sweeteners.
I think the researcher's name was Haywood Jablomie.
I try to avoid anything with sucralose, the controversial ingredient in splenda. If you use it at your home, i'd go for stevia. It's also calorie-free. If you use it when you go out, i'd just go with regular table sugar. Those extra few calories aren't worth the potential health risks.
i use a packet of splenda in my coffee in the morning, and i'm not dead yet.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,591
Not yet.
Will all the dead people please speak up?
Will all the dead people please speak up?
Last edited:
I asked my doctor this same question, specifically concerning diet soft drinks. He said studies indicated artificial sweeteners were safe. Since then I've switched to diet drinks.
It's sugar and refined flour that are the real killers......
It's sugar and refined flour that are the real killers......
The sodium in the diet drinks will get ya first.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,591
Since artificial sweeteners do nothing but increase the craving for sweet stuff, switching to artificial sweeteners is not a real solution. You also add chemicals or chemically altered substances that may or may not do you harm in the long run.
Sensible consumption is out of the question for most people. In the end they pay the price for not knowing what "one portion" is. Too bad, but hey, it's their lives.
Here is a presentation of both sides .
http://occams.blogspot.com/2006/06/splenda-is-scary-stuff.html
Splenda, which comes in those little yellow packages that now reside alongside those red and blue satchels of sugar substitutes at restaurants, has got its fair share of press over the years. There's plenty of opinions on whether this "made from sugar" sugar substitute is safe to eat or not. Some have compared the structure of Splenda (the trade name of sucralose) to DDT, which others compare it to sodium chloride (table salt). You can buy books on how this stuff will kill you, or read about how it was discovered serendipitously by some chemists trying to make better insecticides.
Here's some homework for you: If you know a chemist (preferably an organic chemist, but anyone with a semester or two or organic chemistry will do), show them the structure of sucralose. Ask them if they would eat it. If they don't recognize it as Splenda immediately, I bet they'll give you a disgusted look and say you're crazy. Then tell them what it is. If they are pouring those yellow packages into their lattes, they'll stop. Every single chemist I've run this experiment on has the same reaction: "that stuff can't be good for you." Try it yourself, let me know what responses you get.
Explaining why this molecule is likely not good for you can be a bit complicated, but I'll give it a go. It's those chlorine (Cl) atoms that are so troublesome. First off, the structural comparisons mentioned above are terrible chemical metaphors. There is nothing (aside from it being the same element) at all in common between sucralose and table salt, as FDA Chemist George Pauli would like you to believe. DDT is slightly closer in chemical space to sucralose, but it's still pretty different, and its just irresponsible to try to scare people by making that comparison
Understanding how those might react in the human body is way beyond the scope of this post, but let me make a much more realistic chemical analogy for you. The potentially harmful portion of Splenda is most like methyl chloride (CH3–Cl). Not in that sucralose is a colorless flammable gas (you knew that), but that methyl chloride and sucralose are both good candidates for substitution reactions. This can lead to the modification of all sorts of molecules in your body, which is hardly ever a good thing.
The short of it is that long-term studies of the effects of eating this miracle sugar have not been done. Splenda's FAQs might suggest otherwise, but I'm skeptical. If the FDA thinks this is chemically similar to NaCl, then we've got some pretty big problems on our hands. Not only does the FDA ultimately decide what is safe for us to eat, but most
....................................................
http://occams.blogspot.com/2006/06/splenda-is-scary-stuff.html
Splenda, which comes in those little yellow packages that now reside alongside those red and blue satchels of sugar substitutes at restaurants, has got its fair share of press over the years. There's plenty of opinions on whether this "made from sugar" sugar substitute is safe to eat or not. Some have compared the structure of Splenda (the trade name of sucralose) to DDT, which others compare it to sodium chloride (table salt). You can buy books on how this stuff will kill you, or read about how it was discovered serendipitously by some chemists trying to make better insecticides.
Here's some homework for you: If you know a chemist (preferably an organic chemist, but anyone with a semester or two or organic chemistry will do), show them the structure of sucralose. Ask them if they would eat it. If they don't recognize it as Splenda immediately, I bet they'll give you a disgusted look and say you're crazy. Then tell them what it is. If they are pouring those yellow packages into their lattes, they'll stop. Every single chemist I've run this experiment on has the same reaction: "that stuff can't be good for you." Try it yourself, let me know what responses you get.
Explaining why this molecule is likely not good for you can be a bit complicated, but I'll give it a go. It's those chlorine (Cl) atoms that are so troublesome. First off, the structural comparisons mentioned above are terrible chemical metaphors. There is nothing (aside from it being the same element) at all in common between sucralose and table salt, as FDA Chemist George Pauli would like you to believe. DDT is slightly closer in chemical space to sucralose, but it's still pretty different, and its just irresponsible to try to scare people by making that comparison
Understanding how those might react in the human body is way beyond the scope of this post, but let me make a much more realistic chemical analogy for you. The potentially harmful portion of Splenda is most like methyl chloride (CH3–Cl). Not in that sucralose is a colorless flammable gas (you knew that), but that methyl chloride and sucralose are both good candidates for substitution reactions. This can lead to the modification of all sorts of molecules in your body, which is hardly ever a good thing.
The short of it is that long-term studies of the effects of eating this miracle sugar have not been done. Splenda's FAQs might suggest otherwise, but I'm skeptical. If the FDA thinks this is chemically similar to NaCl, then we've got some pretty big problems on our hands. Not only does the FDA ultimately decide what is safe for us to eat, but most
....................................................
Last edited:
I don't know if its still is easy to find on the net ( direct access goverment records still exist ) but pretty much all artifical sweeteners except sachrin have been formally pitched to the DOD as possible chemical warfare weapons .( You could do the same thing with antifreeze . )
Shannow ,
This takes me to ragged edge of what I VAGUELY can understand or remember .
From the same Blog/post ;
Anonymous said...
It's not just the single electrophile that scares me, but the two on one molecule, just right for cross-linking DNA, which, as someone has put it, would be bad. Think phosgene, oxalyl chloride, di-bromoethane, etc.
This takes me to ragged edge of what I VAGUELY can understand or remember .
From the same Blog/post ;
Anonymous said...
It's not just the single electrophile that scares me, but the two on one molecule, just right for cross-linking DNA, which, as someone has put it, would be bad. Think phosgene, oxalyl chloride, di-bromoethane, etc.
Sucralose will be found perfectly safe... until the patent expires. Then it will cause cancer, impotence, etc., and will be banned.
"how it was discovered serendipitously by some chemists trying to make better insecticides."
That would be funny! A bunch of chemists working on a new super toxin, and one of them says "hey, it's sweet".
"how it was discovered serendipitously by some chemists trying to make better insecticides."
That would be funny! A bunch of chemists working on a new super toxin, and one of them says "hey, it's sweet".
- Status
Similar threads
