Sucralose prevents absorption of protein?

Options
Cheval13
Cheval13 Posts: 392 Member
in Food and Nutrition
If you are like me, hearing that sucralose may have free-radicals that could lead to cancer does not stop you drinking diet coke or your coffee with Splenda. However, this is news that may help you stop.
Sucralose, apparently, will bond with protein in the body and pass through without being absorbed. It is the reason it is a no-calorie sweetener, but it may also cause difficulty with muscle building.
Why work so hard to build muscle if the protein needed to build it is not even used?

"Sucralose starts off as a sugar molecule, it is what goes on in the factory that is concerning. Sucralose is a synthetic chemical that was originally cooked up in a laboratory. In the five step patented process of making sucralose, three chlorine molecules are added to a sucrose or sugar molecule. A sucrose molecule is a disaccharide that contains two single sugars bound together; glucose and fructose.

The chemical process to make sucralose alters the chemical composition of the sugar so much that it is somehow converted to a fructo-galactose molecule. This type of sugar molecule does not occur in nature and therefore your body does not possess the ability to properly metabolize it."

As a disclaimer, I only heard about the protein aspect from someone yesterday. I have yet to find some evidence on the internet... but based on the types of bonds the molecule forms, it seems reasonable that it would attach itself to protein... at least to me!

Also, I am a bit of a loner on MFP, but I am not opposed to making friends... cheers,
Cheval13

Replies

  • jazzalea
    jazzalea Posts: 412 Member
    Options
    gonna have to check this out! ...thanks for the heads up :)
    :flowerforyou:
  • Hendrix7
    Hendrix7 Posts: 1,903 Member
    Options
    The chemical process to make sucralose alters the chemical composition of the sugar so much that it is somehow converted to a fructo-galactose molecule. This type of sugar molecule does not occur in nature and therefore your body does not possess the ability to properly metabolize it."

    I only heard about the protein aspect from someone yesterday. I have yet to find some evidence

    I can't say i'm particularly convinced.
  • Awkward30
    Awkward30 Posts: 1,927 Member
    Options
    In a quick search, I couldn't even find a dubious source for these claims... let alone a good source
  • Cheval13
    Cheval13 Posts: 392 Member
    Options
    Thank goodness...
    however, the fact that it could lead to cancer has been proven, hasn't it??
  • dinerroll
    dinerroll Posts: 12 Member
    Options
    Thank goodness...
    however, the fact that it could lead to cancer has been proven, hasn't it??

    prob not, sacharine, which has only been correlated to cancer in rats, and has been on the market for decades (implying that cancerous effects in humans would have surfaced by now) has a fairly large red warning label on each packet; sucrose has none.
  • JustPeachy044
    JustPeachy044 Posts: 770 Member
    Options
    not sure how true or not true this is...would be interested if someone found a link that explains the theory though.

    I for one, try to steer clear of most artificial sweeteners, and processed foods in general. I think the less steps between nature and your mouth, the higher the nutrient value! There are most likely tons of properly balanced micro-nutrients that probably haven't been "discovered" yet that we get when we eat whole, unprocessed foods. I think it's kind of funny when one is "discovered" (like beta-carotine) and there is a mad rush to extract it from foods and put it in something else in huge amounts. All of a sudden, then we learn that there are side effects to getting huge amounts of that nutrient. *surprise*

    Sorry, off my soap box now.

Categories