Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chemists Were Wrong About Splenda

acsh.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 131 posts

Re: Chemists Were Wrong About Splenda

#81

Post by Grishnakh »

lbenes wrote: post #47

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.…

Ok, here's my anecdotal story: about 12 years ago, I was probably 40 pounds over my college weight. So I stopped drinking sodas every day, and drank water instead. I also got more exercise. (I also cut out stuff with hydrogenated oils, trans fats, etc.) Now I'm back to my college weight. I don't use sucralose, and I really don't see why you need to.

Re: Chemists Were Wrong About Splenda

#82

Post by Grishnakh »

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!

Because you're wrong. Stevia tastes nasty, like some kind of nasty unsweetened licorice or something.

And they do use it to sweeten drinks. Go to any higher-end grocery store and you'll find weird-brand drinks with it, for weirdos like you who apparently can't taste the ick.

What does cilantro taste like to you? To some people, it tastes like soap, to others it doesn't. There's a gene which controls this.

Re: Chemists Were Wrong About Splenda

#84

Post by notacoward »

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!

To me, it tastes extremely icky. It immediately and unpleasantly overpowers anything I put it in, even though I'm fine with every other sweetener I've ever found. It's probably one of those weird genetic things, like how some people can taste PTC or PROP and others can't.

Re: Chemists Were Wrong About Splenda

#85

Post by slededit »

technojunkie wrote: post #77
mhurron wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not a chemophobe by any means. I'm also not anti-lab grown products. Providing for a world with 7+ billion population requires some of this. However, we have decades of studies proving what natural food does to the bodies and we're still learning what synthetic and lab-grown foods do. And yes, I realize this statement can't really apply to Stevia considering the lack of studies into its health on the human body.…

> we have decades of studies proving what natural food does to the bodies

You are making the false assumption "natural" foods are a correlated group as far as health goes. This is empirically false (ignoring the fact that natural has no scientific definition to begin with). Studying sucrose won't inform you of the dangers of cyanide though both are "natural".

Re: Chemists Were Wrong About Splenda

#86

Post by AceyMan »

soundwave106 wrote: post #63
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!

Stevia (the plant) naturally has kind of a slight bitter-ish anise aftertaste in the background. Not something I mind personally, but I'm sure others do. Personally I don't know how much this taste is in the purified compounds themselves. I know many of the early "stevia packets" also exhibited these same sort of characteristics, but it seems to have lessened over time. (Then again, some of this may be due to reformu…

You beat me to the punch on the mention of anise (licorice) aftertaste.

IME, the liquid stevia preparations produce better results than any of the powder forms. I use it in my coffee exclusively and have tried 'em all.

WRT the question, then, about stevia's relative lack of popularity: I think it comes from the aforementioned anise-like note, which seems to operate below a threshold in smaller amounts (such as to sweeten coffee), but at larger amounts (such as soda (pop)) this secondary flavor presents clearly.

Since, for example, one 12oz (355ml) Coca-Cola has 39 grams of sugars (!), the amount of stevia required to equal this level of sweetness goes well into the range where the undesirable anise note becomes present.

I've tried a couple of different stevia sodas and, yeah, they just aren't that great. (Since I rarely drink soda, when I do partake I usually go "full leaded," as they say. Life's too short, and all that...)

That's just my working hypothesis as a stevia fan. YMMV.

(Disclaimer: IANA chemist|biologist|nutrition scientist|&c).

Re: Chemists Were Wrong About Splenda

#87

Post by ewzimm »

fpgaminer wrote: post #75
lbenes wrote: post #47

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 Don't take this as a personal attack on your opinion, but I just don't understand this. The distinction that we make between artificial chemicals and natural chemicals seems to be whether it was invented by humans or invented by evolution. That's a fine distinction to make, but why are human invented chemicals seen as the _worse_ of the two? When evolution invents a ch…

I think it comes down to trust. We're part of nature, created by it and in it. The naturally created chemicals we deal with have been around for longer than we have. We have generations of people who have tested them for both short-term and long-term effects. When things previously thought safe start to harm us, it's usually because of changes in processing, like adding sugar to everything.

Human-created chemicals are much more of a risk. They might only have existed for a few years, and the amount of testing done is nothing compared to the history of evolution on Earth. We are creating them with an imperfect understanding of chemistry and biology. Many people simply prefer an imperfect but reliable solution over a potentially much better but also riskier option.

Not everyone is going to be able to personally vet the safety of new chemicals, so they have to trust the manufacturers who often prioritize profits over safety, confident that they will be able to pay for damages. Consumers need a better reason to trust the people pushing artificial chemicals in food because right now it's hard for them to see their interests as aligned with the companies that make them.

Re: Chemists Were Wrong About Splenda

#88

Post by christophilus »

fpgaminer wrote: post #75
lbenes wrote: post #47

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 Don't take this as a personal attack on your opinion, but I just don't understand this. The distinction that we make between artificial chemicals and natural chemicals seems to be whether it was invented by humans or invented by evolution. That's a fine distinction to make, but why are human invented chemicals seen as the _worse_ of the two? When evolution invents a ch…

I'm on the fence on this one. Here's the logic of the anti-artificial crowd, as best I can put it...

Humans have evolved alongside natural systems. And if humans have been eating something for a very long time, it's probably alright to eat. If a new sugar-like substance came into existence, it would probably come into existence as incremental changes to an existing system. Let's say that existing system was a staple food source for humans. Humans would gradually change as their food source changed, and adapt to it... Or, that food source would gradually become toxic to humans, and we would stop eating it.

Now, take human-invented stuff. You have a sudden new thing which hasn't had generations of humans munching on it. Some lab tests show that it's great. But who really knows? Biology is super complex. And lab tests often have questionable funding and incentives.

Consider the day that wonder-bread was introduced to the world. Old-school fermented sourdough bread had been eaten for a very long time by healthy humans. Wonder-bread had various chemicals tested in isolation which had proved to be positive for health (iron, calcium, etc). But now that enough time has passed, I don't think anyone looking back would suggest that wonder-bread is preferable to traditional sourdough fermentation.

Asbestos is another good example. We thought the stuff was just the best thing ever. Turns out, in the very long run, it's pretty bad news.

So, there's a certain logic to trusting evolved-systems over human-designed systems.

Re: Chemists Were Wrong About Splenda

#89

Post by pygy_ »

matthewowen wrote: post #41
pygy_ wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Thanks, that's the comment I wanted to write but I'm out of neurons right now...

Re: Chemists Were Wrong About Splenda

#90

Post by ruste »

finnh wrote: post #80
lbenes wrote: post #47

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.…

If I'm reading you correctly, you eat nearly a pound of sugar per month? And your doctor recommended something called "Metformin" instead of saying "don't eat so much sugar"? Maybe you need a new doctor to go along with your new sweetener =)

A pound of sugar a month is only 15ish grams per day. You get more than twice that in a can of coke.
Post reply on HN