Chemists Were Wrong About Splenda • Hacker News Board

Re: Chemists Were Wrong About Splenda

#41

Post by matthewowen » Fri, Jun 17, 2016, 6:46 PM UTC

pygy_ wrote: post #16

xirdstl wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Diet Coke uses aspartame also. I figured the difference between Coke Zero and Diet Coke was branding for people who don't want to drink something labeled as diet. EDIT: I drink both regularly (including today), and I personally do not perceive difference in taste. YMMV.

Coke Light => Women Coke Zero => Men

Not sure about the downvotes on this one. My recollection is that Coke Zero was introduced to compete with Pepsi Max, and that the primary reason was that men were reluctant to buy things marked as "Diet" (plus there was a long history of Diet Coke being marketed almost exclusively to women [eg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Sre-wpGHE ]).

Not saying any of this is a good thing... but it's a thing.

Re: Chemists Were Wrong About Splenda

#42

Post by Amezarak » Fri, Jun 17, 2016, 6:47 PM UTC

technojunkie wrote: post #33

Amezarak wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's natural like sugar, Why is that relevant? That's orthogonal to whether it is healthy or unhealthy. There's no reason, based on that information, that I should expect it to be any more or less toxic than Splenda. I mean, the wrong 100% natural mushroom will kill you pretty dead.

Most things can be toxic in high doses. Yes, being natural doesn't say much but I wasn't trying to relate that it's healthy for you just because it's natural.

Sure, I'm just wary of the term 'natural' when it comes to food. As far as I know it confers no benefit on the food item except making consumers feel good about it; i.e., as a descriptor it has little beyond marketing value.

Re: Chemists Were Wrong About Splenda

#43

Post by technojunkie » Fri, Jun 17, 2016, 6:47 PM UTC

SEJeff wrote: post #37

technojunkie wrote: post #14

It's good to see that Splenda isn't the potential toxic substance we began to wonder it was, but I agree that it tastes icky. That said, I wonder why Stevia isn't considered to sweeten drinks? It's very sweet, it's natural like sugar (meaning it's not synthetic or lab-grown), it also has zero calories, and it doesn't taste icky!

opium (for heroine) and coca (used for cocaine) are also natural. Being natural != being healthy.

In strict moderation and control, both of these can be used to treat various problems with our bodies without severe side effects. I wasn't arguing that it's necessarily healthy because it's natural.

Re: Chemists Were Wrong About Splenda

#44

Post by James001 » Fri, Jun 17, 2016, 6:48 PM UTC

Amezarak wrote: post #27

technojunkie wrote: post #14

It's good to see that Splenda isn't the potential toxic substance we began to wonder it was, but I agree that it tastes icky. That said, I wonder why Stevia isn't considered to sweeten drinks? It's very sweet, it's natural like sugar (meaning it's not synthetic or lab-grown), it also has zero calories, and it doesn't taste icky!

> it's natural like sugar, Why is that relevant? That's orthogonal to whether it is healthy or unhealthy. There's no reason, based on that information, that I should expect it to be any more or less toxic than Splenda. I mean, the wrong 100% natural mushroom will kill you pretty dead.

Well that's not true. Saying it's natural suggests that we have atleast evolved with it in the environment, likely interacted with it at times and have developed biological means of interacting and dealing with it. If something is not natural (i.e. doesn't normally exist in nature), then we would not have developed a biological response to it yet, which means it frankly more dangerous because the body does not know how to deal with it.

Re: Chemists Were Wrong About Splenda

#45

Post by technojunkie » Fri, Jun 17, 2016, 6:49 PM UTC

technojunkie wrote: post #33

Amezarak wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's natural like sugar, Why is that relevant? That's orthogonal to whether it is healthy or unhealthy. There's no reason, based on that information, that I should expect it to be any more or less toxic than Splenda. I mean, the wrong 100% natural mushroom will kill you pretty dead.

Most things can be toxic in high doses. Yes, being natural doesn't say much but I wasn't trying to relate that it's healthy for you just because it's natural.

I updated my original comment to describe what I was talking about when saying "natural"

Re: Chemists Were Wrong About Splenda

#46

Post by DrScump » Fri, Jun 17, 2016, 6:50 PM UTC

technojunkie wrote: post #14

It's good to see that Splenda isn't the potential toxic substance we began to wonder it was, but I agree that it tastes icky. That said, I wonder why Stevia isn't considered to sweeten drinks? It's very sweet, it's natural like sugar (meaning it's not synthetic or lab-grown), it also has zero calories, and it doesn't taste icky!

Zevia has a whole product line of stevia sweetened soft drinks.

In the Bay Area, they're available at Sprouts and probably Whole Foods as well.

Re: Chemists Were Wrong About Splenda

#47

Post by lbenes » Fri, Jun 17, 2016, 6:50 PM UTC

I know HN hate anecdotal stories, but here goes anyways. 6 months ago, despite my regular exercise routine, I was about 20 pounds over my college weight and prediabetic. Instead of following my doctor’s recommendations and going on Metformin, I cut all nearly sugars out of my diet and replaced it with sucralose, fat, and fiber. Now, exactly 5 lbs sugar equivalent of sucralose later, and I’m back to my college weight.

While I hate the idea of artificial sweeteners, I hated the idea of a lifetime of medications and being overweight. Everyone's body is different, but for me they played a huge role in getting my health back.

Re: Chemists Were Wrong About Splenda

#48

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jun 17, 2016, 6:50 PM UTC

technojunkie wrote: post #14

It's good to see that Splenda isn't the potential toxic substance we began to wonder it was, but I agree that it tastes icky. That said, I wonder why Stevia isn't considered to sweeten drinks? It's very sweet, it's natural like sugar (meaning it's not synthetic or lab-grown), it also has zero calories, and it doesn't taste icky!

[deleted]

Re: Chemists Were Wrong About Splenda

#49

Post by sscotth » Fri, Jun 17, 2016, 6:50 PM UTC

mazlix wrote: post #19

chucknelson wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always assumed Stevia hasn't taken off yet because that means companies have to spend money on trying to rework "flavor profiles" to work with Stevia. I long for a Stevia-powered Coke Zero...until they realize Stevia also causes horrible things in humans :-/

It's not 0 calorie, but Coke does have a stevia drink called Coke Life ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola_Life )

Because it also contains cane sugar.

Re: Chemists Were Wrong About Splenda

#50

Post by theophrastus » Fri, Jun 17, 2016, 6:51 PM UTC

technojunkie wrote: post #36

grillvogel wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>it's natural like sugar cyanide is also natural

I'm not trying to state its health compared to sugar, just that it's not synthetic

Please just be cautious not to fall into the trap of the 'vital principle'[1]. If you had a bottle of L-ascorbic acid ("vitamin C") in your right hand synthesized in a laboratory and a bottle of L-ascorbic acid in your left extracted from rose hips, you'd agree that except for making arguments about impurities (certainly as likely in the 'natural' extract) that the molecules are identical in every sense in both cases..?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitalism