Paleo Diet and Paleolithic Diet Questions & Answers

Question

1

http://thepeopleschemist.com/splenda-the-artificial-sweetener-that-explodes-internally/

There don't appear to be any references and it seems like a blog post. I'm not sure what to make of it. Does anyone have scientific references or some more in depth information about this?

flag	asked Jun 20 2011 at 18:36 JakeA 5,657●11●31

Well, aside from it's artificiality, Splenda contains GMO ingredients. Personally, I don't trust anything GMO, particularly given that it is illegal almost everywhere in the world outside the US. – Cave Tomboy Jun 22 2011 at 8:33

miked · Accepted Answer · 2011-06-20 19:05:49Z UTC

I'm not sure I buy all of his arguments. I'm at least glad he's drawing chemical structures and trying to explain things like that - it's good when people look at the underlying chemistry. I try to get people to do that all the time.

He's complaining that the Cl (cholrine atom) is the problem and comparing sucralose to agent orange. Well if you look at the molecules, in sucralose you have the Cl bound to a 6-member ring with an O and on the methyl of the 5-member ring. Then he shows agent orange where the Cl is bound to a 6-member ring with the alternating double bonds (benzyl ring).

Unfortunately, that's where his argument breaks down. The two rings (regular 6-member ring vs 6-member benzyl ring) couldn't be more different. It's hard to describe this without pictures, but a regular 6 member ring is bulky and "squishy" (to use the technical term). That makes is very stable and unlikely to react. The benzyl ring is very flat and stiff. And that's what makes it dangerous. The flat part intercolates between the base-pairs in DNA and then the higly reactive Cl atom is right there to react and cause bad things. (I'm guessing that's how agent orange works). Side note: take a look at the structures of most of the known carcinogens - I bet 90% of them have one or more benzyl rings in them. Edited to add: This doesn't mean that a benzyl ring is "bad", it's just that a side effect of it is that it can easily react with DNA, lots of safe molecules have benzyl rings - I'm just suspicious of highly reactive species attached to benzyl rings.

So my summary of this is that his argument isn't very strong. However I still think sucralose is a bad idea - something that's 600 times sweeter than sugar! So I never touch it.

UncleLongHair · Answer 2 · 2011-06-20 18:49:33Z UTC

I am just very skeptical of all of the artificial sweeteners. Think about it, you are putting something in your body that tastes sweet but isn't.

Years ago saccharine was considered safe and fun. Then they found it caused tumors, etc. I think each artificial sweetener has gone through a similar progression (not that they all cause tumors, but ill health effects were found). I suspect we'll find the same thing with splenda.

We just weren't built to eat lots of sweets, especially those that are refined to have no food value. Seth Roberts has done some research suggesting that eating sweet foods raises your body's "set point" i.e. internally-determined ideal weight. So it isn't only the calories and insulin spike from the sugar that are bad for you, but the flavor itself.

I think that all sweet flavors of all kinds, natural or artificial, should simply be avoided. When you do this, you'll find that you are sensitive to a lot of other flavors that you missed earlier, and some things like the fat around meat will start to taste sweet. This will also train you to look for flavor and satisfaction elsewhere which will encourage you to eat more "real" foods.

Jack Kronk · Answer 3 · 2011-06-20 19:24:44Z UTC

i don't buy his claims. i don't think splenda or sucralose is the greatest thing ever, but the whole "danger" and "poison" aspect that this guy pushes is over the top. you have to consume thousands of packets of splenda at one time to equal the negative effects that it has had in mice. so the dose may make the poison yet again in this case.

i could write an article about how eggs contain protein and how too much protein can cause all kinds of bodily rashes and skin irritations and upset stomach, but if it would take 157 eggs in one breakfast to reach that point, how valid is the argument?

cliff · Answer 4 · 2011-06-20 18:58:14Z UTC

1

Sucralose is a chlorinated sugar, definitely some nasty stuff.

Stick to xylitol or stevia if your looking for an artificial sweetener

answered Jun 20 2011 at 18:58

cliff
13.4k●1●9●28

1

To follow the same arguments that I gave in my answer: look up the structure of xylitol. It's basically just an open-ring fructose molecule. Once it's digested it's trivial for your body to turn it into fructose and from there it's metabolized just like fructose. – miked Jun 20 2011 at 19:00

stevia is not artificial – Jack Kronk Jun 20 2011 at 19:19

Fructose isn't necessarily bad though and the amounts you eat from xylitol would be trivial. – cliff Jun 20 2011 at 21:57

If xylitol can kill my dog I ain't eating that kwap ! Just sayin' – sienna Jun 22 2011 at 2:27

snopes.com/critters/crusader/xylitol.asp – sienna Jun 22 2011 at 2:33

Digby · Answer 5 · 2011-06-20 23:36:20Z UTC

The major problem with artificial sweeteners is they keep promising the brain food and the brain will demand food even more, so people using lots of faux sweeteners wind up bingeing. None of such sweeteners are good for you. Google the history of them and find the were generally accidenatl discoveries while looking for a cancer cure, etc.

sienna · Answer 6 · 2011-06-22 02:29:34Z UTC

1

SPLENDA IS NOT SPLENDID! By James Bowen, M.D.

link text

answered Jun 22 2011 at 2:29

sienna
285●1●5

great book. plus one – The Quilt Jun 23 2011 at 3:05

The Quilt · Answer 7 · 2011-06-20 23:40:48Z UTC

0

What he believes about the sweetener is true but how he proves it is not.

edited Jun 20 2011 at 23:40

answered Jun 20 2011 at 20:49

The Quilt
27.4k●1●13●82

i'd love to hear your elaboration doc, if you're willing to put it together. seriously. i'm not exactly keen on splenda/sucralose, but i'm also not really into the over the top approach/attack in that article. do you have some solid insight to provide on sucralose? – Jack Kronk Jun 20 2011 at 21:05

I will in due time Jack. Im rolling things out in a step wise fashion. Today was a quick review in dietary biochemistry and flash points back to how it tied in with the mitochondrial series. Soon we hit sleep. Sucralose causes a lot of problems in the brain and in signaling. The only sweetener I advocate is a natural one. Stevia in the raw. Nothing else. – The Quilt Jun 20 2011 at 23:40

3

Dude, Quilt! If you have time to log in to paleohacks and answer a bunch of questions, you must have time to put something more than "What he believes about the sweetener is true but how he proves it is not." This site is about providing information to people interested in paleo topics, not throwing out hooks to draw people into personal blogs. Answering doesn't require unloading everything you've ever read on a subject, but typing at least 3-4 sentences might constitute a reasonable answer. You seem to be using fewer ellipses these days, so I know you have the capability to adapt! – Kamal♦ Jun 21 2011 at 0:13

2

That's been my issue with drK since the getgo. He never tries to help anyone with his pithy "answers." I simply don't get why one would post something as an answer that doesn't answer anything. – ben61820 Jun 22 2011 at 2:47

Is splenda as bad as this guy says?

7 Answers