Live data from Hacker News

Chemists Were Wrong About Splenda

acsh.org

51–60 of 131 posts

Re: Chemists Were Wrong About Splenda

#51
Potentially interesting article that gives up half-way through at the most interesting part to digress into an anti-anti-synthetic chemical rant. Not that I'm against that, but I was really intrigued to learn why a chemical that has the properties of being reactive isn't reactive. The article just says that your body doesn't break it down. What does digestion have to do with it? If a molecule is reactive, then its reactive and should potentially react within the digestive system. So why doesn't it? That's the interesting bit that I was hoping to have answered and what the article seemed to be leading to until it stopped.

In other words, imagine an article about cyanide that spent half of its time explaining all the parts of cyanide that could potentially react with organic chemistry, and then abruptly ended with "and your body absorbs it through the digestive system, so that's why it's bad." Unsatisfying, right?

Also, why does the molecule look like insecticide or flame retardant? That isn't explained either. Does the fact that it has hotspots make it look like that? Or is there something more about its structure.

Re: Chemists Were Wrong About Splenda

#52

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!

Yes, it tastes icky. Maybe just to me, though.

Re: Chemists Were Wrong About Splenda

#53
post #34

I remember learning about sucralose along with the rest of saccharides, in college biochem back in the 00's. Even then it was taught that sucralose is a relatively inert compound that doesn't get taken up through the intestine, and doesn't pose a threat - though the prof did cite some study that sucralose accumulated in rat's liver if they ate huge quantities of it. I don't think chemists have been thinking sucralose…

> I don't think chemists have been thinking sucralose is toxic for a while now.

Sucralose is, without any doubt, the most extensively studied artificial food additive of all time. I'm reticent about consuming food with artificial additives and preservatives, but I have absolutely no qualms whatsoever about ingesting sucralose. I have a huge bottle of liquid sucralose in my otherwise largely organic kitchen.

Re: Chemists Were Wrong About Splenda

#54

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.

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 h…

I get your point, but as the above poster said, often the body's way of dealing with things is to suffer and/or die. So...how is having an existing way to "deal with it" terribly helpful?

(Not trolling, seeking honest clarification)

Re: Chemists Were Wrong About Splenda

#55
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you tried aspartame? I've found that Coke Zero tastes much closer to real sugar than Diet Coke.

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.

Oh absolutely not

They taste extremely different

Which doesn't help because most places only serve Diet Coke (which I hate) instead of Coke Zero (which at least is available in most supermarkets)

Re: Chemists Were Wrong About Splenda

#56
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you tried aspartame? I've found that Coke Zero tastes much closer to real sugar than Diet Coke.

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 Zero has a much better taste profile than diet coke IMO. That said it's a bit biased since I drink way too much coke zero.

Re: Chemists Were Wrong About Splenda

#57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

You still didn't give any reason why something that is natural should be preferred over something that is synthetic or lab grown.

Honestly, other than fear of 'teh chemicals,' I can't think of a reason.

Re: Chemists Were Wrong About Splenda

#59
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really understand the popularity of artificial sweeteners. They all taste totally teh ick to me. I would much rather have something that is not sweet than something that is artificially sweet. But judging from the beverage selection available at just about any convenience store, I'm possibly the only person in the USA who would rather drink something that isn't sweet than something that contains 0 calorie swe…

I'll admit that I do enjoy the occasional sugary soda, but I try to keep that to a minimum. I find that I prefer flavored sparkling water like La Croix (which does not contain any sweetener) over diet soda. I still don't find La Croix in restaurants hardly ever, but it's becoming more and more common in grocery stores.

Discovering La Croix has changed my life. The Cherry Lemon one (which seems to only be available at Target?) is incredible.

Re: Chemists Were Wrong About Splenda

#60

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!

> but I agree that it tastes icky.

You should consider getting some liquid sucralose. I agree that splenda is yucky, but that's largely because of the fillers that make the volume measurement manageable. Pure liquid sucralose, which is nothing but sucralose and water, tastes exactly like sugar to me. Seriously, put both in some lemonade and I'd never be able to tell the difference.

Post reply on HN