Splenda...Good or Bad?

Heather75

It means that Splenda sucker punches babies.

Schwiggity

It means that Splenda sucker punches babies.

with its left hand.

martinah4

It means that Splenda sucker punches babies.

with its left hand.

roflmao!

mynameisuntz

I'm going to need to see evidence for all these claims.

i_love_vinegar

Im from a health-nut California town...I don't use Splenda most likely because it was never very popular to begin with here.

I think it has an odd after taste, and I've noticed the people who tend to use artificial sweetners usually don't look that thin or healthy from my experience...

I agree with someone who said not to completely trust in the FDA as well...

FifiLea

I don't understand chemistry. I've had it told to me that Splenda is "left-handed" sugar, but I don't understand that analogy either. Can you explain it to me in laymens terms?
[/quote]


In short, a left-handed sugar (L-sugar) is a substance that has its molecules arranged in the mirror image of sugar (a bit like your left hand is the mirror image of the right). This apparently means that it can't be digested and absorbed by our bodies because our digestive systems only recognise the regular (right-handed) molecular arrangement of sugar. If it can't be absorbed, then it passes through the body without supplying calories. L-sugar is supposed to be different from a sweetener in that it cooks like and tastes like actual sugar.

Does that make sense? It's explained much better here: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0675/is_n6_v9/ai_11489806/

Getting_Fit_4_Life

I use Stevia. I been told that it's better than Splenda. I struggled with deciding which sweetner to use becaus of all the conflicting debate. Something is okay and safe for human consumption today, then FDA say it causes cancer, etc. It's a tough choice.

lovejoydavid

t
Splenda contains chlorine according to "Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills"

It does, the chlorine replaces hydroxides in the bond. However, the electronegativity of that bond is the reason that we cannot digest it for calories. As such, the chlorine passes out of the body, intact with the molecule, without ever becoming a free chloride ion.

Finally, someone who understands chemistry!

I don't understand chemistry. I've had it told to me that Splenda is "left-handed" sugar, but I don't understand that analogy either. Can you explain it to me in laymens terms?

Not really. The above poster summed up the so-called left and right handed sugars, but insofar as I no, that is only relevant to glucose, which exists in the two "stereoisomers" of the D-glucose (dexter glucose, dextrose) and L-glucose (which does not really exist in nature). However, to my knowledge, that has nothing to do with sucrolose, which is, in fact, a laboratory altered sucrose molecule. The addition of chlorine atoms to create something similar to an organochloride (but not chlorine itself) make the molecule tightly bound and indigestible. As well, there are no proteins set up in the body to specifically transport Splenda, so it passes mostly out of the GI tract unchanged (some of it is absorbed passively). Some very small amount of it is broken down, but not used for any sort of energy. While probably none of that helps, just remember, Splenda is sugar that has been more tightly wound and disguised.

martinah4

I don't understand chemistry. I've had it told to me that Splenda is "left-handed" sugar, but I don't understand that analogy either. Can you explain it to me in laymens terms?

In short, a left-handed sugar (L-sugar) is a substance that has its molecules arranged in the mirror image of sugar (a bit like your left hand is the mirror image of the right). This apparently means that it can't be digested and absorbed by our bodies because our digestive systems only recognise the regular (right-handed) molecular arrangement of sugar. If it can't be absorbed, then it passes through the body without supplying calories. L-sugar is supposed to be different from a sweetener in that it cooks like and tastes like actual sugar.

That is a good explanation. Thank you!

Does that make sense? It's explained much better here: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0675/is_n6_v9/ai_11489806/
[/quote]

cheshirechic

So, since there are a lot of people how know a LOT more than I do about the subject, is sucanat or something like organic raw honey the "healthiest" sweetener?

aneisiena

Honey anyone? :-)

LOLmerrill

I use splenda all the time, and I will continue to use it no matter what anybody says. I trust the makers of splenda, and I trust the FDA on keeping artificial sweeteners relatively safe.

Trusting the FDA seems like a no brainer until you read about the politics of getting food approved. "safety" is a term that can be bought and often is. That said, the most dangerous sweetener to be approved is aspartame (but splenda is hardly better) and I am highly addicted to it. Ive read the studies linking it to various afflictions including tumors, but I drink it. I am an idiot for doing so.

bprague

I honestly feel like if you are using so much sweetener that you need to use artificial ones to cut calories... perhaps you should consider cutting back on your sweet tooth. Splenda has a horrible aftertaste to me (one that is pretty distinct in anything it is in), and that in itself is a huge turn off. Honey and stuff of that nature at least has some nutritional value. The only thing splenda has going for it is that it allows you to continue over sweetening your food. :-/

windybaer

What day of the week was "Splenda" created? There are plenty of natural sweeteners in nutritious fresh fruits, and clover honey is a great option for those with a sweet tooth who are averse to silly arguments about science.

lovejoydavid

What day of the week was "Splenda" created? There are plenty of natural sweeteners in nutritious fresh fruits, and clover honey is a great option for those with a sweet tooth who are averse to silly arguments about science.

Perhaps, but that still leaves diabetics, those with fructose intolerance, and immuno-compromised people with questions about sweeteners? I mean, we are not all the same at all, and it is these sorts of arguments that establish the fact that a range of people need a range of options for a range of needs. It also, hopefully, makes that range of options more apparent.

Schwiggity

Splenda takes candy from babies. And then kills them with sugar-free candy sweetened with Splenda!

funkyspunky871

Splenda takes candy from babies. And then kills them with sugar-free candy sweetened with Splenda!

Ah, I love Splenda... Wait a minute.

NEW_decision_HERE

Ok, so I'm a big unsweet tea fan, but I like to put Splenda in my unsweet tea. I've heard a LOT of people say negative things about artificial sweetners. What's the truth? Is Splenda ok or not?

http://1b3a4xmisk1smy7qmanlvr9o58.hop.clickbank.net/?tid=IM

live2dream

Like everything else, you should not just accept that the FDA has your best interest in mind in any decision they make, but you should find out for yourself. The aspartame approval process alone should make you take all their rulings with a grain of salt, as it was mired in all sorts of twisted politics, cross pollination with pharmaceutical companies, and lobbyist tactics.

This we can agree on-- finding out for yourself is important rather than blindly accepting whatever you hear (from gov't and corporations especially).

Having said that, I have yet to see any conclusive evidence that there are any practical negative downsides to artificial sweeteners.

The problem I have with that is- where is the conclusive evidence that it IS safe?? I personally try to only put natural products in and on my body instead of subjecting myself to being a human guinea pig that consumes whatever is on the market, not knowing if there are going to be negative consequences in the future. But everyone has the right to make their own choices- just as some people choose to smoke and get cancer (Years ago doctors used to say cigarettes were safe). I choose not to wait around until it may or may not turn into 'official ' evidence of it causing negative effects. (which happens often with pharmaceuticals and other chemically created lab products)

LorinaLynn

It goes both ways, too. I have friends in pharmaceutical companies, on the research and development side, and admittedly in veterinary medicine, and there's products that get pulled from the market with bogus claims. One company buys out another, and there's redundancies. They don't need to have two different, for example, heartworm medications. So one product is now labeled as "bad" with trumped up reports, and goes off the market. If it happens in animal care, you know damn well it happens in people care.

But similarly, when there was that pet food recall, or when some batches of Tylenol are found bad, there's a HUGE movement to get that stuff off the shelf.

I don't trust the government. Or anyone. Everyone is out to make a buck. I just think the government stands to make a lot more bucks off me as a living taxpayer than as a dead one who used Asparetame. Or one draining the health care system from Aspartame related medical problems.

sbwood888

Splenda contains chlorine according to "Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills"

So does any municipal water supply.

lauz45

Not splenda specifically (funnily enough it's not sweet enough for me) but I'm a big tea drinker (in the uk it's *always* hot and with mik - sugar optional) and i've had saccharin sweeteners in my tea for as long as i've been old enough to drink it - we're probably talking 16 years. Is it a coincidence that I got the habit from my mum, and we both battle to lose weight? I don't know.

I'd really like to kick the habit and just have it plain, it's just a comfort thing, the taste of it. Luckily I absolutely hate sugar in drinks - tea with sugar, full fat coke etc. I hate the taste it leaves in your mouth.