10 ms·

Chemists Were Wrong About Splenda

86 points by nkurz 10y ago

draw_down 10y ago
Too bad it tastes weird.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  Yeah, that's the conclusion in the article too: But I still don’t use it; not due to safety concerns, but because I think it tastes icky.
- personjerry 10y ago
  Have you tried aspartame? I've found that Coke Zero tastes much closer to real sugar than Diet Coke.
  - jameskegel 10y ago
    The difference between Coke Zero and Diet Coke is that one uses the Coca Cola Classic formula, and the other one is Coke. The name difference is to signify the flavor profile.
  - draw_down 10y ago
    Yes, I prefer it. Coke Zero does taste closer to Coke but in an "uncanny valley" sort of way. I drink Diet Coke often, I like it. It isn't really supposed to taste like Coke.
    - mindcrime 10y ago
      Strangely enough, I'd rather have Coke Zero than regular Coke now. After getting used to Coke Zero, if I pick up a regular Coke and drink it, it tastes wrong.
  - mevile 10y ago
    For me aspartame depends on the thing it's in. In jelly it's super nice, in drinks? Nope. Coke Zero is gross imo.
  - xirdstl 10y ago
    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.
    - pygy_ 10y ago
      Coke Light => Women Coke Zero => Men
      - matthewowen 10y ago
        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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Sre-wpGHE ]). Not saying any of this is a good thing... but it's a thing.
        pygy_ 10y ago
        Thanks, that's the comment I wanted to write but I'm out of neurons right now...
    - mixmastamyk 10y ago
      Zero also has less caffeine.
      - ajmurmann 10y ago
        Thanks for this! This was a huge shocker and I immediately had to go confirm it. Because of the way the branding is, I had assumed that Zero would have more caffeine.
        mixmastamyk 10y ago
  - jason46 10y ago
    I'm not sure because both give me heart burn.
  - lobster_johnson 10y ago
    In many countries (such as Germany), Coke adds sodium cyclamate to the usual aspartame + acesulfame-K. I find that cyclamate improves it immensely, and eliminates the bitter aftertaste of aspartame. Unfortunately, in the US it's still banned, even though the consensus is that it's harmless.
- bunderbunder 10y ago
  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 sweeteners. Maybe I'm just really picky.
  - xirdstl 10y ago
    I think that a lot of it is what you're accustomed to drinking. I used to only drink regular colas and hated the taste of diet. I now drink only diet, and regular tastes too sweet to me.
  - nilkn 10y ago
    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.
    - RealCasually 10y ago
      Discovering La Croix has changed my life. The Cherry Lemon one (which seems to only be available at Target?) is incredible.
      - bunderbunder 10y ago
        Sacrilege! Pamplemousse forever.
  - draw_down 10y ago
    I used to feel that way too, but years ago I dated someone who only ever drank Diet Coke, and I started to like it after repeated exposure. For a long time after that, real sugar drinks were way too sweet tasting and gross to me, though now I can enjoy a regular Coke now and then.
- fpgaminer 10y ago
  You get used to it. Not in a bad way, like getting used to nasty medicine. After about a week it just tastes like normal sweet and it's no big deal.
koolba 10y ago
Nice article and I like the matter-of-fact writing style. Makes me want to study more chemistry. Any suggestions from this audience of how to get into it? Pick up a Chemistry 101 text book?
- Aelinsaar 10y ago
  I don't think you can ever go too far wrong with Khan Academy.
- gww 10y ago
  I like "General Chemistry" by Linus Pauling, despite its age it is a nice introductory book.
- xenophonf 10y ago
  Zumdahl's Chemistry and the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics were the mainstays of my high school and college chemistry education.
  - niels_olson 10y ago
    don't read the CRC Handbook, it's like the encyclopedia though: fun to flip through and you might actually refer to it occasionally.
- GregBuchholz 10y ago
  I haven't yet read it, but have been thinking about getting a copy of "Chemistry: a Very Short Introduction" by Peter Atkins http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2015/03/chemistry-very-short-introduction http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2015/03/chemistry-very-sho...
- jgamman 10y ago
  i did a lot of chemistry at uni - your question made me think. it's a little like programming - the field is so vast and fundamental that you may as well start with a topic you're interested in and then dig deep every time you find a word/phrase/assumption you don't get (heads up: there will be a lot). i'd actually say that chem is a difficult subject to learn independently. it is one of those subjects that is best learned with other people and those that know - you learn lots of seemingly disconnected things that only slowly coalesce into a broad understanding. IME for most people, that coalescence takes the first several months of a post-grad project - there's something about being in a lab and discussing chemistry that blends all the bits together. it's been 20 years but the text books at Uni of Auckland were McMurray for Organic chem, Atkins for physical chem and Atkins, Shriver and Langford for Inorganic. Personally I found Atkins a difficult read and would recommend hunting around for an author that you enjoy reading. read In the Pipeline regularly - it's a blog by a medicinal chemist that is quite excellent (his 'things i won't work with' posts are brilliant ;-). there's also a saying in chem that you learn it through your fingertips - pen and paper sketching structures and working with glassware. it's a strange blend of theory, practice and intuition - that's either its biggest appeal or its biggest turnoff... YMMV. if you really are keen, drop me a note - i'm intrigued to see if i could design a curriculum using open source pubs and edX.
harpastum 10y ago
The site looks like it went down. Cache/mirror of the text: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:hmNYN92_UesJ:acsh.org/news/2016/06/16/chemists-were-wrong-about-splenda/&num=1&hl=en&gl=us&strip=1&vwsrc=0 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:hmNYN92...
technojunkie 10y ago
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!
- chucknelson 10y ago
  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 :-/
  - mazlix 10y ago
    It's not 0 calorie, but Coke does have a stevia drink called Coke Life (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola_Life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola_Life)
    - sscotth 10y ago
      Because it also contains cane sugar.
  - technojunkie 10y ago
    They do have Stevia Coke and Pepsi but I've never had them. http://money.cnn.com/2014/10/02/news/companies/coke-pepsi-stevia/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2014/10/02/news/companies/coke-pepsi-st...
  - hammock 10y ago
    Stevia is HUGE. It's biggest benefit is that it can be marketed as "natural" allowing you to put "no artificial sweeteners" on the package. Pretty much everything sugar-free or reduced-sugar in Whole Foods has stevia in it. One of the reasons why you don't see it EVERYWHERE is that it's much more expensive compared to Ace-K and aspartame.
whack 10y ago
For anyone considering taking Splenda as a form of weight control: It's true that Splenda has 0 calories, but it also causes your body to develop greater cravings for sweet (sugary) food/drinks. In the long term, this can cause you to eat/drink in a more unhealthy manner, undoing all the caloric benefits you thought you were getting from Splenda. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-drinks/artificial-sweeteners/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-drinks/...
tacos 10y ago
Fantastic writing style. Modern, clever, pre-emptive. Hopefully even accurate. Loved this: "Since the stuff is synthetic, it’s guaranteed that Joe Mercola and the rest of the anti-chemical Internet dopes are going to try to scare you, and they’ll probably succeed. I didn’t even bother to look."
bduerst 10y ago
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 is toxic for a while now. I also remember that if anyone could figure out how to cheaply synthesize L-glucose, they will be billionaires.
- AnkhMorporkian 10y ago
  > 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.
lbenes 10y ago
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.
- fpgaminer 10y ago
  > 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 chemical it's completely random and untested. When humans invent a chemical they vet it through rigorous study and testing. Given a random chemical from nature and a random chemical from human labs, I'll take my chances on humans. Real-life examples of evolution engineering... heart conditions, dementia, HIV, anemia, etc. Anemia is a good example, because it makes humans immune to malaria. Just a few side effects though... I feel like our track record is stellar compared to all the follies of evolution. So why are our chemicals viewed in such a negative light compared to these Loki designed chemicals? It's absurd. Speaking specifically about sugar versus artificial sweeteners, all our studies to date have indicated that sugar is decidedly toxic at average consumption levels, whereas sucralose/aspartame is non-toxic. Again, it seems like nature designed a worse chemical than us.
  - ewzimm 10y ago
    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.
fpgaminer 10y ago
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.
- plus 10y ago
  >Also, why does the molecule look like insecticide or flame retardant? Certain insecticides[0] and flame-retardants[1] are among the more infamous organohalides. Sucralose is also an organohalide. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrabromobisphenol_A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrabromobisphenol_A
- kragen 10y ago
  I'm not sure. I'm not a chemist, so I went and looked up a table of bond energies to see whether chlorohydrocarbons should actually be more reactive than the corresponding hydrocarbons, and it seems like the answer is actually yes, because the bond-dissociation energy isn't determined purely in isolation; the rest of the molecule affects it. A Cl-CH₃ bond has an energy of 339 kJ/mol, while the H-CH₃ bond has an energy of 431 kJ/mol, and the outrageously stable F-CH₃ is 452 kJ/mol. In isolation, the C-Cl bond has an energy of some 397 kJ/mol, while C-H is only 337 kJ/mol. I think typically the issue with reactive molecules is not that they react within the digestive system — if they're reactive enough to do that, then they may burn your mouth or even stomach, but they're unlikely to make it to your intestines without reacting with the rest of your food. The issue is typically that, if they get absorbed into your bloodstream, they can find their way to all parts of your body, and then wreak havoc on the one or a few particular molecules they react with. So apparently sucralose doesn't get absorbed into your bloodstream, and it's not so reactive that you get chemical burns, so it's harmless. And it doesn't get absorbed because it doesn't react with sucrase (or invertase), maybe because the big chlorine atoms bumping around there result in steric hindrance that keeps it from binding to the enzyme properly. As for insecticides and flame retardants, there is a large family of organochloride insecticides (including DDT), and organohalogens are common flame retardants, including the famous PCBs, but also things like HBCD. Both DDT and PCBs are notable not for being reactive but for being unreactive.
niels_olson 10y ago
Note, the publisher of this article, the ACSH, is considered "industry-friendly" and their medical director had his license revoked for fraud. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Council_on_Science_and_Health https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Council_on_Science_an...
LyndsySimon 10y ago
I don't consume sucralose if I can avoid - not because I believe it's toxic, but because I've observed that my short-term memory is significantly deteriorated after consuming it. It might be the placebo effect, but I'm fairly confident it's not. Placebo effect or not, it has a discernible impact on my cognitive ability, so I avoid it.
- convivialdingo 10y ago
  I get short-term headaches from aspartame myself. I don't know exactly why - but I've read that drinking artificial sweeteners may trick the body into anticipating an energetic food causing it to release insulin. The resulting mild hypoglycemia causes headaches.
danarlow 10y ago
ahem... just because sucralose is not super reactive does not mean that it is not harmful. some evidence suggests it can screw up your gut microbiome: http://www.nature.com/news/sugar-substitutes-linked-to-obesity-1.15938 http://www.nature.com/news/sugar-substitutes-linked-to-obesi...
l3m0ndr0p 10y ago
None of this shit is good for you, period. Anything that is derived from something else, distilled, converted or chemically altered is not good for you. Can't be. It's been my experience that these companies don't care about your health and never will. They just want a compound that will make you addicted to it, so you can keep on buying and consuming it.

86 points by nkurz 10y ago

draw_down 10y ago

Too bad it tastes weird.

maxerickson 10y ago
Yeah, that's the conclusion in the article too: But I still don’t use it; not due to safety concerns, but because I think it tastes icky.
personjerry 10y ago
Have you tried aspartame? I've found that Coke Zero tastes much closer to real sugar than Diet Coke.
- jameskegel 10y ago
  The difference between Coke Zero and Diet Coke is that one uses the Coca Cola Classic formula, and the other one is Coke. The name difference is to signify the flavor profile.
- draw_down 10y ago
  Yes, I prefer it. Coke Zero does taste closer to Coke but in an "uncanny valley" sort of way. I drink Diet Coke often, I like it. It isn't really supposed to taste like Coke.
  - mindcrime 10y ago
    Strangely enough, I'd rather have Coke Zero than regular Coke now. After getting used to Coke Zero, if I pick up a regular Coke and drink it, it tastes wrong.
- mevile 10y ago
  For me aspartame depends on the thing it's in. In jelly it's super nice, in drinks? Nope. Coke Zero is gross imo.
- xirdstl 10y ago
  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.
  - pygy_ 10y ago
    Coke Light => Women Coke Zero => Men
    - matthewowen 10y ago
      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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Sre-wpGHE ]). Not saying any of this is a good thing... but it's a thing.
      - pygy_ 10y ago
        Thanks, that's the comment I wanted to write but I'm out of neurons right now...
  - mixmastamyk 10y ago
    Zero also has less caffeine.
    - ajmurmann 10y ago
      Thanks for this! This was a huge shocker and I immediately had to go confirm it. Because of the way the branding is, I had assumed that Zero would have more caffeine.
      - mixmastamyk 10y ago
- jason46 10y ago
  I'm not sure because both give me heart burn.
- lobster_johnson 10y ago
  In many countries (such as Germany), Coke adds sodium cyclamate to the usual aspartame + acesulfame-K. I find that cyclamate improves it immensely, and eliminates the bitter aftertaste of aspartame. Unfortunately, in the US it's still banned, even though the consensus is that it's harmless.
bunderbunder 10y ago
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 sweeteners. Maybe I'm just really picky.
- xirdstl 10y ago
  I think that a lot of it is what you're accustomed to drinking. I used to only drink regular colas and hated the taste of diet. I now drink only diet, and regular tastes too sweet to me.
- nilkn 10y ago
  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.
  - RealCasually 10y ago
    Discovering La Croix has changed my life. The Cherry Lemon one (which seems to only be available at Target?) is incredible.
    - bunderbunder 10y ago
      Sacrilege! Pamplemousse forever.
- draw_down 10y ago
  I used to feel that way too, but years ago I dated someone who only ever drank Diet Coke, and I started to like it after repeated exposure. For a long time after that, real sugar drinks were way too sweet tasting and gross to me, though now I can enjoy a regular Coke now and then.
fpgaminer 10y ago
You get used to it. Not in a bad way, like getting used to nasty medicine. After about a week it just tastes like normal sweet and it's no big deal.

koolba 10y ago

Nice article and I like the matter-of-fact writing style. Makes me want to study more chemistry. Any suggestions from this audience of how to get into it? Pick up a Chemistry 101 text book?

Aelinsaar 10y ago
I don't think you can ever go too far wrong with Khan Academy.
gww 10y ago
I like "General Chemistry" by Linus Pauling, despite its age it is a nice introductory book.
xenophonf 10y ago
Zumdahl's Chemistry and the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics were the mainstays of my high school and college chemistry education.
- niels_olson 10y ago
  don't read the CRC Handbook, it's like the encyclopedia though: fun to flip through and you might actually refer to it occasionally.
GregBuchholz 10y ago
I haven't yet read it, but have been thinking about getting a copy of "Chemistry: a Very Short Introduction" by Peter Atkins http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2015/03/chemistry-very-short-introduction http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2015/03/chemistry-very-sho...
jgamman 10y ago
i did a lot of chemistry at uni - your question made me think. it's a little like programming - the field is so vast and fundamental that you may as well start with a topic you're interested in and then dig deep every time you find a word/phrase/assumption you don't get (heads up: there will be a lot). i'd actually say that chem is a difficult subject to learn independently. it is one of those subjects that is best learned with other people and those that know - you learn lots of seemingly disconnected things that only slowly coalesce into a broad understanding. IME for most people, that coalescence takes the first several months of a post-grad project - there's something about being in a lab and discussing chemistry that blends all the bits together. it's been 20 years but the text books at Uni of Auckland were McMurray for Organic chem, Atkins for physical chem and Atkins, Shriver and Langford for Inorganic. Personally I found Atkins a difficult read and would recommend hunting around for an author that you enjoy reading. read In the Pipeline regularly - it's a blog by a medicinal chemist that is quite excellent (his 'things i won't work with' posts are brilliant ;-). there's also a saying in chem that you learn it through your fingertips - pen and paper sketching structures and working with glassware. it's a strange blend of theory, practice and intuition - that's either its biggest appeal or its biggest turnoff... YMMV. if you really are keen, drop me a note - i'm intrigued to see if i could design a curriculum using open source pubs and edX.

harpastum 10y ago

The site looks like it went down. Cache/mirror of the text: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:hmNYN92_UesJ:acsh.org/news/2016/06/16/chemists-were-wrong-about-splenda/&num=1&hl=en&gl=us&strip=1&vwsrc=0 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:hmNYN92...

technojunkie 10y ago

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!

chucknelson 10y ago
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 :-/
- mazlix 10y ago
  It's not 0 calorie, but Coke does have a stevia drink called Coke Life (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola_Life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola_Life)
  - sscotth 10y ago
    Because it also contains cane sugar.
- technojunkie 10y ago
  They do have Stevia Coke and Pepsi but I've never had them. http://money.cnn.com/2014/10/02/news/companies/coke-pepsi-stevia/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2014/10/02/news/companies/coke-pepsi-st...
- hammock 10y ago
  Stevia is HUGE. It's biggest benefit is that it can be marketed as "natural" allowing you to put "no artificial sweeteners" on the package. Pretty much everything sugar-free or reduced-sugar in Whole Foods has stevia in it. One of the reasons why you don't see it EVERYWHERE is that it's much more expensive compared to Ace-K and aspartame.

whack 10y ago

For anyone considering taking Splenda as a form of weight control: It's true that Splenda has 0 calories, but it also causes your body to develop greater cravings for sweet (sugary) food/drinks. In the long term, this can cause you to eat/drink in a more unhealthy manner, undoing all the caloric benefits you thought you were getting from Splenda. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-drinks/artificial-sweeteners/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-drinks/...

tacos 10y ago

Fantastic writing style. Modern, clever, pre-emptive. Hopefully even accurate. Loved this: "Since the stuff is synthetic, it’s guaranteed that Joe Mercola and the rest of the anti-chemical Internet dopes are going to try to scare you, and they’ll probably succeed. I didn’t even bother to look."

bduerst 10y ago

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 is toxic for a while now. I also remember that if anyone could figure out how to cheaply synthesize L-glucose, they will be billionaires.

AnkhMorporkian 10y ago
> 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.

lbenes 10y ago

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.

fpgaminer 10y ago
> 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 chemical it's completely random and untested. When humans invent a chemical they vet it through rigorous study and testing. Given a random chemical from nature and a random chemical from human labs, I'll take my chances on humans. Real-life examples of evolution engineering... heart conditions, dementia, HIV, anemia, etc. Anemia is a good example, because it makes humans immune to malaria. Just a few side effects though... I feel like our track record is stellar compared to all the follies of evolution. So why are our chemicals viewed in such a negative light compared to these Loki designed chemicals? It's absurd. Speaking specifically about sugar versus artificial sweeteners, all our studies to date have indicated that sugar is decidedly toxic at average consumption levels, whereas sucralose/aspartame is non-toxic. Again, it seems like nature designed a worse chemical than us.
- ewzimm 10y ago
  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.

fpgaminer 10y ago

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.

plus 10y ago
>Also, why does the molecule look like insecticide or flame retardant? Certain insecticides[0] and flame-retardants[1] are among the more infamous organohalides. Sucralose is also an organohalide. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrabromobisphenol_A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrabromobisphenol_A
kragen 10y ago
I'm not sure. I'm not a chemist, so I went and looked up a table of bond energies to see whether chlorohydrocarbons should actually be more reactive than the corresponding hydrocarbons, and it seems like the answer is actually yes, because the bond-dissociation energy isn't determined purely in isolation; the rest of the molecule affects it. A Cl-CH₃ bond has an energy of 339 kJ/mol, while the H-CH₃ bond has an energy of 431 kJ/mol, and the outrageously stable F-CH₃ is 452 kJ/mol. In isolation, the C-Cl bond has an energy of some 397 kJ/mol, while C-H is only 337 kJ/mol. I think typically the issue with reactive molecules is not that they react within the digestive system — if they're reactive enough to do that, then they may burn your mouth or even stomach, but they're unlikely to make it to your intestines without reacting with the rest of your food. The issue is typically that, if they get absorbed into your bloodstream, they can find their way to all parts of your body, and then wreak havoc on the one or a few particular molecules they react with. So apparently sucralose doesn't get absorbed into your bloodstream, and it's not so reactive that you get chemical burns, so it's harmless. And it doesn't get absorbed because it doesn't react with sucrase (or invertase), maybe because the big chlorine atoms bumping around there result in steric hindrance that keeps it from binding to the enzyme properly. As for insecticides and flame retardants, there is a large family of organochloride insecticides (including DDT), and organohalogens are common flame retardants, including the famous PCBs, but also things like HBCD. Both DDT and PCBs are notable not for being reactive but for being unreactive.

niels_olson 10y ago

Note, the publisher of this article, the ACSH, is considered "industry-friendly" and their medical director had his license revoked for fraud. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Council_on_Science_and_Health https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Council_on_Science_an...

LyndsySimon 10y ago

I don't consume sucralose if I can avoid - not because I believe it's toxic, but because I've observed that my short-term memory is significantly deteriorated after consuming it. It might be the placebo effect, but I'm fairly confident it's not. Placebo effect or not, it has a discernible impact on my cognitive ability, so I avoid it.

convivialdingo 10y ago
I get short-term headaches from aspartame myself. I don't know exactly why - but I've read that drinking artificial sweeteners may trick the body into anticipating an energetic food causing it to release insulin. The resulting mild hypoglycemia causes headaches.

danarlow 10y ago

ahem... just because sucralose is not super reactive does not mean that it is not harmful. some evidence suggests it can screw up your gut microbiome: http://www.nature.com/news/sugar-substitutes-linked-to-obesity-1.15938 http://www.nature.com/news/sugar-substitutes-linked-to-obesi...

l3m0ndr0p 10y ago

None of this shit is good for you, period. Anything that is derived from something else, distilled, converted or chemically altered is not good for you. Can't be. It's been my experience that these companies don't care about your health and never will. They just want a compound that will make you addicted to it, so you can keep on buying and consuming it.