Guest guest Posted December 16, 2003 Report Share Posted December 16, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 16, 2003 Report Share Posted December 16, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 16, 2003 Report Share Posted December 16, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 16, 2003 Report Share Posted December 16, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 16, 2003 Report Share Posted December 16, 2003 --- 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 " ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 16, 2003 Report Share Posted December 16, 2003 > > 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 16, 2003 Report Share Posted December 16, 2003 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. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 16, 2003 Report Share Posted December 16, 2003 > > 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 16, 2003 Report Share Posted December 16, 2003 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 16, 2003 Report Share Posted December 16, 2003 >> 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 16, 2003 Report Share Posted December 16, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 16, 2003 Report Share Posted December 16, 2003 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@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 16, 2003 Report Share Posted December 16, 2003 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. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 16, 2003 Report Share Posted December 16, 2003 >> 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 16, 2003 Report Share Posted December 16, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 17, 2003 Report Share Posted December 17, 2003 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 > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 17, 2003 Report Share Posted December 17, 2003 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. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 17, 2003 Report Share Posted December 17, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 17, 2003 Report Share Posted December 17, 2003 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. > > > > - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 17, 2003 Report Share Posted December 17, 2003 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. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 17, 2003 Report Share Posted December 17, 2003 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. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 17, 2003 Report Share Posted December 17, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 17, 2003 Report Share Posted December 17, 2003 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. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 17, 2003 Report Share Posted December 17, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 17, 2003 Report Share Posted December 17, 2003 --- 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.