Re: Splenda use and Ill health

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/16/03 3:27:30 PM Eastern Standard Time,

liberty@... writes:

> I also find it silly when people

> insist that, while sucralose isn't natural, stevia is,

> based merely on the fact that it comes from a plant.

>

Is Splenda sucralose? If so it also comes from a plant, since its

chlorinated sugar.

I don't know if I mentioned this before, but I think there is something

horrid about either sucralose or acesulfame-K. I drank a coffee drink a few

weeks

ago that had coffee and a protein supplement in it, and it was sweetened with

both of these. It tasted like a combination of chlorine and dental decay to

me. It was probably the most disgusting thing I've ever tasted, or at least

one of them, and I'm going to stay away from both sweeteners for now.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/16/03 4:27:42 PM Eastern Standard Time,

liberty@... writes:

> Yes that's true, but doesn't the chlorine form a chemical

> bond with the sugar molecule, thus creating a new chemical

> compound, and one not present in the cane?

That's true. Someone posted an article here before in which the manufacturer

claimed the chlorine atom was like the chlorine atom in salt. I just did a

quick look to find that's an absurd claim, since sucralose is actually a sugar

molecule with thre chlorines substituted for a hydroxyl each. So how the

manufacturer can claim this is like ionic chloride is beyond me.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/16/03 7:19:16 PM Eastern Standard Time,

liberty@... writes:

> What do you mean? Is a chlorine atom's bond to a sugar

> molecule in a molecule of sucralose, weaker than that to

> a sodium atom in a molecule of salt? Is the chlorine in

> sucralose any more able to disassociate itself from the

> rest of the molecule in our digestive tracts, than is the

> chlorine in salt?

It's considerably less able. 100% of the chloride in salt is dissociated

from sodium in our stomach, or in any other aqueous solution. Although, one

caveat here-- there's no such thing as a molecule of salt. Ionic compounds do

not

come in molecules.

That's not really the point though. The point is that there is no chlorine in

salt, there's chloride. Sure it's the same element, but the behavior of

atomic chlorine and ionic chloride are very different, which is one reason we

put

chlorine tablets in our pool instead of sprinkling them on our food.

From the quick search I did, the limited research done on sucralose indicates

some 10-40% of it is absorbed, and some third or so of the absorbed sucralose

is metabolised. What happens to that chlorine when it is metabolised? I

honestly have no idea, but if its bound covalently, and it dissociates in a way

that doesn't ionize, the chlorine would presumably act as a free radical rather

than a chloride ion.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/16/03 7:46:59 PM Eastern Standard Time,

mhysmith@... writes:

> Mercola has some claims of ill health on his site but he also claims it is

> chlorinated which according to my scientist friend is an improper use of the

> term.

Did he elaborate at all on why it was improper? I read that sucralose

replaces some of the hydroxyl groups with chlorine atoms. Isn't the chlorine

covalently bonded? If so, what else would you call it besides chlorinated?

If you get a chance to ask him it would be great to have some more info.

Chris

[Guest guest]

--- In , Mr Movie <qwbw48a@y...>

wrote:

>

> I personally would never use any artifical sweetners.

>

> Just my 2 cents!

I would. I'd use anything that could improve my quality

of life. The question is merely one of whether sucralose

is harmful or not. If it is, then there's no net gain in

the improvement of quality of life. But the fact that one

artifical thing is harmful, doesn't mean that all other

articifial things are necessarily also. If you really

believed that, you wouldn't be using a computer. Also,

if you eat domesticated fruit, you _are_ in a sense using

artificial sweeteners. I also find it silly when people

insist that, while sucralose isn't natural, stevia is,

based merely on the fact that it comes from a plant.

That's silly because not only is a refinement process

necessary to obtain the powder, but more importantly

because the overwelming majority of our ancestors never

ate anything remotely resembling the stevia plant. The

same could be said about the use of plant-derived drugs

or " herbs " , which is really no more natural, nor should

any such treatment be thought more safe on the basis of

being herbal alone. How do we use the words " natural "

and " artificial " ?

[Guest guest]

>

> Is Splenda sucralose? If so it also comes from a plant, since its

> chlorinated sugar.

Yes that's true, but doesn't the chlorine form a chemical

bond with the sugar molecule, thus creating a new chemical

compound, and one not present in the cane?

> I don't know if I mentioned this before, but I think there is

> something horrid about either sucralose or acesulfame-K.

I find acesulfame-K the same, and the first time I tasted

sucralose I didn't like it either, but now I've come to

think it tastes better than stevia in most things. I think

part of the reason Splenda tastes better though, is the

large amount of maltodextrin added to it. The maltodextrin

definitely causes me problems in large amounts, and I'm not

entirely convinced that sucralose is safe either, so I try

not to use alot of it.

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>Is Splenda sucralose? If so it also comes from a plant, since its

>chlorinated sugar.

There are two variants of Splenda -- pure sucralose, which is what food

product manufacturers use in sweetening things like sodas, and the stuff

you can buy at a supermarket, which is a little sucralose mixed with a lot

of maltodextrin for bulk equivalency. Whatever the merits or dangers of

sucralose, maltodextrin is very bad news.

>I don't know if I mentioned this before, but I think there is something

>horrid about either sucralose or acesulfame-K.

Ace-k apparently tends to promote thyroid tumors among other fun outcomes,

and I think sucralose is supposed to have some warning signs too. Neither,

AFAIK, is nearly as bad as aspartame, but saccharine is almost certainly

much, much better.

-

[Guest guest]

>

> That's true. Someone posted an article here before in which the

> manufacturer claimed the chlorine atom was like the chlorine atom

> in salt. I just did a quick look to find that's an absurd claim,

> since sucralose is actually a sugar molecule with thre chlorines

> substituted for a hydroxyl each. So how the manufacturer can

> claim this is like ionic chloride is beyond me.

What do you mean? Is a chlorine atom's bond to a sugar

molecule in a molecule of sucralose, weaker than that to

a sodium atom in a molecule of salt? Is the chlorine in

sucralose any more able to disassociate itself from the

rest of the molecule in our digestive tracts, than is the

chlorine in salt?

[Guest guest]

Splenda is sucrose with chlorine bonded. The body does recognize it as

sucrose and does not metabolize it. From what I have read, tests show that

most of Splenda is passed out of the body within a matter of hours. Some is

absorbed in the digestive walls and most of that is passed out within 24

hours. What I got asking a friend who is a molecular biologist is that it

is the same molecular structure as in salt and spinach and other foods.

Also according to him, the tests thus far indicate it is safe. However,

there are not that many tests and it has not been in use for that long. So

he would not take a position one way or the other as to its safety saying

insufficient info at this point to make a professional opinion. For him

personally, he is avoiding using it until more info is available.

Mercola has some claims of ill health on his site but he also claims it is

chlorinated which according to my scientist friend is an improper use of the

term. I have been reading low carb boards for over 18 months. It is the

most popular sugar sub used. No one has ever associated any problems to it.

Also, the bulk Splenda is cut with maltodextrin while the little packets

are cut with both maltodextrin and dextrose making them taste a bit

different and dissolve better.

Re: Splenda use and Ill health

>

> That's true. Someone posted an article here before in which the

> manufacturer claimed the chlorine atom was like the chlorine atom

> in salt. I just did a quick look to find that's an absurd claim,

> since sucralose is actually a sugar molecule with thre chlorines

> substituted for a hydroxyl each. So how the manufacturer can

> claim this is like ionic chloride is beyond me.

What do you mean? Is a chlorine atom's bond to a sugar

molecule in a molecule of sucralose, weaker than that to

a sodium atom in a molecule of salt? Is the chlorine in

sucralose any more able to disassociate itself from the

rest of the molecule in our digestive tracts, than is the

chlorine in salt?

[Guest guest]

>> Ace-k apparently tends to promote thyroid tumors among other fun outcomes,

and I think sucralose is supposed to have some warning signs too. Neither,

AFAIK, is nearly as bad as aspartame, but saccharine is almost certainly

much, much better. <<

I agree... but this reminds me of something I've been meaning to look into more.

On the Stevia Plus package it lists the glycemic index of sugar, splenda

(sucralose), equal (nutrasweet, aspartame), sweet 'n' low (saccharine), and of

course, their stevia product. They list sugar at 70, stevia at 0 (yes, zero),

and all the rest at 80.

Anyone know where this coming from? I tried googling a few things that made

sense to me, but found zip.

Christie

[Guest guest]

This is what he wrote me on chlorination

" The term chlorinated is mainly reserved when a hydroxyl molecule has the

hydrogen replaced with a chlorine atom. Likewise chlorination occurs by the

addition of hydroxylated chlorine atoms to a metal as with bleach (NaHClO :

sodium hypochlorite) . Likewise chlorination can occur in a hydrocarbon that

has hydrogens replaced by chlorine atoms. Such hydrocarbons are primarily

used as pesticides. However, many organic compounds contain chlorine

addition as in the form of HCl which makes the chlorinated molecule capable

of dissolving and/or form a salt with a Na atom. Such addition also aids the

uptake of the molecule. This is found in many different types of non-protein

antibiotics. So the term " chlorinated " is misunderstood and in most cases

improperly used. "

Re: Re: Splenda use and Ill health

In a message dated 12/16/03 7:46:59 PM Eastern Standard Time,

mhysmith@... writes:

> Mercola has some claims of ill health on his site but he also claims it

is

> chlorinated which according to my scientist friend is an improper use of

the

> term.

Did he elaborate at all on why it was improper? I read that sucralose

replaces some of the hydroxyl groups with chlorine atoms. Isn't the

chlorine

covalently bonded? If so, what else would you call it besides

chlorinated?

If you get a chance to ask him it would be great to have some more info.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Quoting ChrisMasterjohn@...:

> That's not really the point though. The point is that there is no

> chlorine in

> salt, there's chloride. Sure it's the same element, but the behavior of

> atomic chlorine and ionic chloride are very different, which is one

> reason we put

> chlorine tablets in our pool instead of sprinkling them on our food.

More to the point, which elements are contained in a covalently-bonded

molecule tells you very little about its chemical properties. Hydrogen

cyanide, a deadly poison, is made of hydrogen, carbon, and nitrogen, all of

which are found abundantly in the air we breathe and the food we eat. We

cannot draw any conclusions about the biological properties of any other

chlorine-containing compounds from the fact that chlorine gas (diatomic

chlorine, I believe) is poisonous.

--

Berg

bberg@...

[Guest guest]

Christie-

I've heard people on this list and others mention the supposed 0 value for

stevia, but I've never seen any kind of documentation. I too would really

like to see some.

>On the Stevia Plus package it lists the glycemic index of sugar, splenda

>(sucralose), equal (nutrasweet, aspartame), sweet 'n' low (saccharine),

>and of course, their stevia product. They list sugar at 70, stevia at 0

>(yes, zero), and all the rest at 80.

>

>Anyone know where this coming from? I tried googling a few things that

>made sense to me, but found zip.

-

[Guest guest]

>> I've heard people on this list and others mention the supposed 0 value for

stevia, but I've never seen any kind of documentation. I too would really

like to see some. <<

I have emailed them and asked!

Christie

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/16/03 9:00:55 PM Eastern Standard Time,

mhysmith@... writes:

> " The term chlorinated is mainly reserved when a hydroxyl molecule has the

> hydrogen replaced with a chlorine atom. Likewise chlorination occurs by the

> addition of hydroxylated chlorine atoms to a metal as with bleach (NaHClO :

> sodium hypochlorite) . Likewise chlorination can occur in a hydrocarbon that

> has hydrogens replaced by chlorine atoms. Such hydrocarbons are primarily

> used as pesticides. However, many organic compounds contain chlorine

> addition as in the form of HCl which makes the chlorinated molecule capable

> of dissolving and/or form a salt with a Na atom. Such addition also aids the

> uptake of the molecule. This is found in many different types of non-protein

> antibiotics. So the term " chlorinated " is misunderstood and in most cases

> improperly used. "

So splenda uses the latter form of " chlorination " ? If that's the case, the

info on the net I read is false, and it would seem to be more similar to the

chloride in salt as the manufacturer claimed.

Chris

[Guest guest]

I realize this is somewhat off the topic but I realize nobody uses

splenda cuz they love it, they just use it as a non carb sweetner they

find that works well for their usage. That being said there appears

to be some " confusion " in the literature as to its safety. If it is

or not I have no idea, I just know that there are at the very

least " claims " against it, whatever that means.

On the topic of sugar alcohols, Xylitol (birch sugar)... there seems

to be minimal to no claims or documentation of negative effects.

I've done a fairly thorough inquiry and at this point simply based

upon the lengthy peroid of usage in scandanavia and very little

negative commentary both official and unofficial if I were to use a

sugar alcohol it would likely be Xylitol.

DMM

> In a message dated 12/16/03 9:00:55 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> mhysmith@e... writes:

>

> > " The term chlorinated is mainly reserved when a hydroxyl molecule

has the

> > hydrogen replaced with a chlorine atom. Likewise chlorination

occurs by the

> > addition of hydroxylated chlorine atoms to a metal as with bleach

(NaHClO :

> > sodium hypochlorite) . Likewise chlorination can occur in a

hydrocarbon that

> > has hydrogens replaced by chlorine atoms. Such hydrocarbons are

primarily

> > used as pesticides. However, many organic compounds contain

chlorine

> > addition as in the form of HCl which makes the chlorinated

molecule capable

> > of dissolving and/or form a salt with a Na atom. Such addition

also aids the

> > uptake of the molecule. This is found in many different types of

non-protein

> > antibiotics. So the term " chlorinated " is misunderstood and in

most cases

> > improperly used. "

>

> So splenda uses the latter form of " chlorination " ? If that's the

case, the

> info on the net I read is false, and it would seem to be more

similar to the

> chloride in salt as the manufacturer claimed.

>

> Chris

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Mike-

I would emphatically recommend against use of any sugar alcohols. First,

they're not non-caloric. Second, they can interfere with ketosis and

weight loss, though apparently different people have different

results. Third, and most important, they cause diarrhea in many

people. I've experimented with pretty much all the sugar alcohols on the

market, and there's not one of them that doesn't give me terrible

runs. The only variation is in the degree of severity, ranging from really

awful (maltitol) to days of excruciation (sorbitol). Nor am I a rare

exception. Far from it. And the fact that they cause diarrhea indicates

pretty conclusively that they're serving as carbon sources for undesirable

microbes in the gut.

>On the topic of sugar alcohols, Xylitol (birch sugar)... there seems

>to be minimal to no claims or documentation of negative effects.

-

[Guest guest]

There is no need in human nutrition for sweets, so the alternative is to

train your taste buds away from sweet.

The more fat and protein I eat the less carbs and sweet tastes I want.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

,

Actually the diarrhea part that is so annoying to you, I find a bonus. I

tend toward constipation and the laxative effect is often welcome relief, as

I don't experience diarrhea from them. Your other points are well taken,

but wanting a substitute for sugar for oatmeal, ice cream, kefir, etc.

sometimes we have to choose the best of all evils. Sugar is a killer for

me, inc. honey, so I have to use something. I hate the taste of stevia.

And saccharine doesn't taste quite right in many foods. So, I am still on

the path of finding a substitute that won't cause harm and taste fairly

good. I know that there are some fructose mixtures on the market like Whey

Low and Kiwi Sweet, etc., but I don't respond well to fruit sugars, either.

It looks like I will have to choose a chemical substitute, but which one????

Jafa

[Guest guest]

while I'm not such a proponent of sugar alcohols as to want to

debate this with you or anyone.

Certainly using you as a barometer isn't the best idea for the

general populous considering the level of sensitivity you display

overall to certain foods... etc...

My statement regarding a reasonably long history of alleged safe

usage and minimal to no negative info official or otherwise still

holds true.

DMM

Ps- Weight loss and good health can and does occur sans ketosis.

--- In , Idol <Idol@c...>

wrote:

> Mike-

>

> I would emphatically recommend against use of any sugar alcohols.

First,

> they're not non-caloric. Second, they can interfere with ketosis

and

> weight loss, though apparently different people have different

> results. Third, and most important, they cause diarrhea in many

> people. I've experimented with pretty much all the sugar alcohols

on the

> market, and there's not one of them that doesn't give me terrible

> runs. The only variation is in the degree of severity, ranging

from really

> awful (maltitol) to days of excruciation (sorbitol). Nor am I a

rare

> exception. Far from it. And the fact that they cause diarrhea

indicates

> pretty conclusively that they're serving as carbon sources for

undesirable

> microbes in the gut.

>

> >On the topic of sugar alcohols, Xylitol (birch sugar)... there

seems

> >to be minimal to no claims or documentation of negative effects.

>

>

>

> -

[Guest guest]

Judith-

Same here, but while there's no nutritional requirement for sweets, humans

do nonetheless have sweet teeth.

>The more fat and protein I eat the less carbs and sweet tastes I want.

-

[Guest guest]

Mike-

>Certainly using you as a barometer isn't the best idea for the

>general populous considering the level of sensitivity you display

>overall to certain foods... etc...

I'm not just using myself as an example, though. Nose around on the web on

low-carb sites (those run by individuals, not corporations, that is) and

you'll see that many people get the runs from sugar alcohols. CSPI is

agitating for a warning label -- and yes, I know, they're not exactly my

favorite organization either, but IMO they have it right on this particular

issue.

>My statement regarding a reasonably long history of alleged safe

>usage and minimal to no negative info official or otherwise still

>holds true.

I'm not disparaging your research, I'm just suggesting that TPTB might well

have ignored diarrhea.

-

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/17/03 3:13:33 PM Eastern Standard Time,

jaltak@... writes:

> Sweets can, and do, destroy health. So the pursuit of

> happiness and, at the same time, the pursuit of health may be impossible.

But sweets can, and do, repair health. Raw honey has been used, with

apparent success to treat diabetes. I haven't researched this, but there are

abundant anecdotes and reports on the internet. It's a unique addition to the

diet

that most people, not all, would probably benefit from, over not consuming it.

Many of the sweetest natural foods are some of the most beneficial, berries

for instance. Also, sugars play a variety of important physiological roles,

and it's likely that someone would be best of consuming them within the proper

context and dosage, rather than relinquishing them completely.

Chris

[Guest guest]

No disagreement there. But humans do not have to be slave to it. They can

choose to train themselves away from it.

I see so many people who are eating low-carb and crying because of the lack

of sweets, when their time could be better spent enjoying what they do have.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

Judith-

Same here, but while there's no nutritional requirement for sweets, humans

do nonetheless have sweet teeth.

>The more fat and protein I eat the less carbs and sweet tastes I want.

-

[Guest guest]

Are keifr, ice cream and hot coco essential to life?

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

Judith,

Sorry, but kefir, ice cream and hot cocoa without a sweetener isn't worth

the trouble, as it will go uneaten at our house. Even though bland and

sour can ultimately be an acquired taste (or won't), I consider a sweet

taste to be one of life's greatest pleasures. Just trying to do it, without

sending my blood sugar to the moon!

Jafa

[Guest guest]

--- In , Idol <Idol@c...>

wrote:

>

> I've experimented with pretty much all the sugar alcohols on the

> market, and there's not one of them that doesn't give me terrible

> runs. The only variation is in the degree of severity, ranging

> from really awful (maltitol) to days of excruciation (sorbitol).

Have you ever tried erythritol? It's not supposed to cause

the same sorts of digestive problems that the other sugar

alcohols do.