7 ms·

Was actually needing some caffeine to up me toda. I debated having a sugar free Red Bull but even the sugar free ones are not great for you due to the sucralose

Blackthorn 3y ago
I know I won't change anyone's already set opinions here, but for anyone reading this and not sure what is being discussed: there's absolutely nothing wrong with consuming sucralose.
- blips 3y ago
  look here bud, they confirmed it in a pitri dish. I think we can proceed to throw all the food in my house out now
- psychphysic 3y ago
  I personally find what poses a risk to my health (actually my waist line) is if I have one sugar free drink (sweetened) I just crave more. I don't know if the sugar mitigates some effect, or it's purely driven by psychology and me unconsciously feeling unrestricted in consuming sugar free drinks. But I see a clear effect in me. I even tried coke life when it existed to see if I managed it better but it was too short lived to know.
  - valianteffort 3y ago
    Yes your blood sugar is regulated by insulin
- c22 3y ago
  For anyone reading this looking for a more nuanced take: [0]. [0]: https://usrtk.org/sweeteners/sucralose-emerging-science-reveals-health-risks/ https://usrtk.org/sweeteners/sucralose-emerging-science-reve...
- ohgodplsno 3y ago
  There might be. A research shows it is genotoxic at times. https://healthnews.com/news/chemical-in-artificial-sweetener-may-damage-dna/ https://healthnews.com/news/chemical-in-artificial-sweetener...
- Fauntleroy 3y ago
  I have extremely strong anecdotal evidence that sucralose is toxic to my gut fauna. Two years of suffering are enough to convince me, but I'm hopeful to see the research that confirms it sooner than later.
  - Blackthorn 3y ago
    Hey, if you've found it's bad for you, then by all means don't consume it! The nice thing about sweeteners, unlike a lot of other food stuff, is that there's a lot of options out there.
    - Fauntleroy 3y ago
      Yes, I know this. However you're making the blanket statement that it's harmless, and I simply have to push back on that. If it affected me this negatively, it's surely causing harm to others.
      - Blackthorn 3y ago
        I mean my wife is allergic to lactose, but I wouldn't say lactose is anything but generally harmless.
        giardini 3y ago
        "...but I wouldn't say lactose is anything but generally harmless." Obviously you've never lain (I cannot call it sleep) with a lactose-intolerant SO after an evening of milk-laden feasting (loves Indian desserts which, with Indian meal included, ratchets up the noxious undercover methane emissions by about 10,000%). The dog even moved out of the bedroom!8-((
  - heisenbit 3y ago
    This is actually a good point: The fact that it does not get metabolized by the body does not mean it does not get metabolized by some valuable bacterial symbionts.
- baremetal 3y ago
  Sucralose found in common sweetener damages DNA, may cause cancer [1] [1] https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/sucralose-found-in-common-sweetener-damages-dna-may-cause-cancer https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/sucralose-found-in...
  - inciampati 3y ago
    I've recently been wondering if sucralose isn't the agent driving a recent increase in cancer cases among young people. Putting lots of chlorine atoms in your sugar is not a good idea. We got my mom to stop using it when she developed some bad rashes on her hands. Turns out, sucralose was the cause.
  - hombre_fatal 3y ago
    Reality: At the very highest concentrations of the sucralose compound tested in this study, using cells in petri dishes, one marker of gene damage was slightly elevated
    - baremetal 3y ago
      In reality, I try to minimize my exposure to known carcinogens. This one is quite avoidable.
      - hombre_fatal 3y ago
        If your epistemic standard is based on what happens to a single marker of cells in a petri dish at concentrated levels of exposure, then the list of foods you should avoid is endless. You couldn't even eat meat nor all sorts of vegetables even though those foods improve human health outcomes in clinical trials. For example, that experiment can't even capture the most basic hormetic effect.
- snapcaster 3y ago
  You don't know this! I don't take issue with you consuming it but you absolutely shouldn't have confidence that there aren't negative effects from consuming something humans never had to adapt to. Just say "we don't know of anything wrong with consuming it"
  - extasia 3y ago
    "snapcaster, flashback counterspell" "gg"
  - Blackthorn 3y ago
    These artificial sweeteners are among the most studied chemicals in the world. At some point you've gotta say okay, they're fine, or okay, they're not.
    - throwaway290 3y ago
      If artificial sweeteners are so well studied as you claim then why sucralose was found to damage DNA while erythritol was linked to heart attacks in studies just this year? Sugar or nothing for me personally.
    - detrites 3y ago
      Studied by whom for what goal? They're also some of the most astutely-avoided substances, with various products proudly proclaiming they don't contain them. Such markets could well potentially exist due to user experience trumping studies.
      - Blackthorn 3y ago
        So I take it you're on the "okay, they're not" side of that divide? I mean, how many more decades does one need to really make a decision on these?
        xcv123 3y ago
        There are studies for and against artificial sweeteners. There are studies funded by industry. There is such a thing as corruption in science and corruption in regulatory agencies. The global artificial sweetener market size is $7 Billion. https://www.healthline.com/health-news/this-common-sugar-substitute-may-damage-your-dna-and-increase-your-cancer-risk https://www.healthline.com/health-news/this-common-sugar-sub...
- Eumenes 3y ago
  https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/cancer-warning-over-cell-destroying-30144208 https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/cancer-warning-over...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
topicseed 3y ago
What's wrong with sucralose?
- alamortsubite 3y ago
  There's recent research showing it's genotoxic in even moderate quantities: https://news.ncsu.edu/2023/05/genotoxic-chemical-in-sweetener/ https://news.ncsu.edu/2023/05/genotoxic-chemical-in-sweetene...
- inciampati 3y ago
  Putting chlorine in sugars that get metabolized seems to be a very bad idea because it leads to some very radical compounds getting loose in the cell.
  - slashdev 3y ago
    Sucralose isn’t metabolized. The body excretes it in the same quantity you take in. Also table salt is half chlorine and not a health issue (at least not because it contains chlorine). The body is complex.

Blackthorn 3y ago

I know I won't change anyone's already set opinions here, but for anyone reading this and not sure what is being discussed: there's absolutely nothing wrong with consuming sucralose.

blips 3y ago
look here bud, they confirmed it in a pitri dish. I think we can proceed to throw all the food in my house out now
psychphysic 3y ago
I personally find what poses a risk to my health (actually my waist line) is if I have one sugar free drink (sweetened) I just crave more. I don't know if the sugar mitigates some effect, or it's purely driven by psychology and me unconsciously feeling unrestricted in consuming sugar free drinks. But I see a clear effect in me. I even tried coke life when it existed to see if I managed it better but it was too short lived to know.
- valianteffort 3y ago
  Yes your blood sugar is regulated by insulin
c22 3y ago
For anyone reading this looking for a more nuanced take: [0]. [0]: https://usrtk.org/sweeteners/sucralose-emerging-science-reveals-health-risks/ https://usrtk.org/sweeteners/sucralose-emerging-science-reve...
ohgodplsno 3y ago
There might be. A research shows it is genotoxic at times. https://healthnews.com/news/chemical-in-artificial-sweetener-may-damage-dna/ https://healthnews.com/news/chemical-in-artificial-sweetener...
Fauntleroy 3y ago
I have extremely strong anecdotal evidence that sucralose is toxic to my gut fauna. Two years of suffering are enough to convince me, but I'm hopeful to see the research that confirms it sooner than later.
- Blackthorn 3y ago
  Hey, if you've found it's bad for you, then by all means don't consume it! The nice thing about sweeteners, unlike a lot of other food stuff, is that there's a lot of options out there.
  - Fauntleroy 3y ago
    Yes, I know this. However you're making the blanket statement that it's harmless, and I simply have to push back on that. If it affected me this negatively, it's surely causing harm to others.
    - Blackthorn 3y ago
      I mean my wife is allergic to lactose, but I wouldn't say lactose is anything but generally harmless.
      - giardini 3y ago
        "...but I wouldn't say lactose is anything but generally harmless." Obviously you've never lain (I cannot call it sleep) with a lactose-intolerant SO after an evening of milk-laden feasting (loves Indian desserts which, with Indian meal included, ratchets up the noxious undercover methane emissions by about 10,000%). The dog even moved out of the bedroom!8-((
- heisenbit 3y ago
  This is actually a good point: The fact that it does not get metabolized by the body does not mean it does not get metabolized by some valuable bacterial symbionts.
baremetal 3y ago
Sucralose found in common sweetener damages DNA, may cause cancer [1] [1] https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/sucralose-found-in-common-sweetener-damages-dna-may-cause-cancer https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/sucralose-found-in...
- inciampati 3y ago
  I've recently been wondering if sucralose isn't the agent driving a recent increase in cancer cases among young people. Putting lots of chlorine atoms in your sugar is not a good idea. We got my mom to stop using it when she developed some bad rashes on her hands. Turns out, sucralose was the cause.
- hombre_fatal 3y ago
  Reality: At the very highest concentrations of the sucralose compound tested in this study, using cells in petri dishes, one marker of gene damage was slightly elevated
  - baremetal 3y ago
    In reality, I try to minimize my exposure to known carcinogens. This one is quite avoidable.
    - hombre_fatal 3y ago
      If your epistemic standard is based on what happens to a single marker of cells in a petri dish at concentrated levels of exposure, then the list of foods you should avoid is endless. You couldn't even eat meat nor all sorts of vegetables even though those foods improve human health outcomes in clinical trials. For example, that experiment can't even capture the most basic hormetic effect.
snapcaster 3y ago
You don't know this! I don't take issue with you consuming it but you absolutely shouldn't have confidence that there aren't negative effects from consuming something humans never had to adapt to. Just say "we don't know of anything wrong with consuming it"
- extasia 3y ago
  "snapcaster, flashback counterspell" "gg"
- Blackthorn 3y ago
  These artificial sweeteners are among the most studied chemicals in the world. At some point you've gotta say okay, they're fine, or okay, they're not.
  - throwaway290 3y ago
    If artificial sweeteners are so well studied as you claim then why sucralose was found to damage DNA while erythritol was linked to heart attacks in studies just this year? Sugar or nothing for me personally.
  - detrites 3y ago
    Studied by whom for what goal? They're also some of the most astutely-avoided substances, with various products proudly proclaiming they don't contain them. Such markets could well potentially exist due to user experience trumping studies.
    - Blackthorn 3y ago
      So I take it you're on the "okay, they're not" side of that divide? I mean, how many more decades does one need to really make a decision on these?
      - xcv123 3y ago
        There are studies for and against artificial sweeteners. There are studies funded by industry. There is such a thing as corruption in science and corruption in regulatory agencies. The global artificial sweetener market size is $7 Billion. https://www.healthline.com/health-news/this-common-sugar-substitute-may-damage-your-dna-and-increase-your-cancer-risk https://www.healthline.com/health-news/this-common-sugar-sub...
Eumenes 3y ago
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/cancer-warning-over-cell-destroying-30144208 https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/cancer-warning-over...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

topicseed 3y ago

What's wrong with sucralose?

alamortsubite 3y ago
There's recent research showing it's genotoxic in even moderate quantities: https://news.ncsu.edu/2023/05/genotoxic-chemical-in-sweetener/ https://news.ncsu.edu/2023/05/genotoxic-chemical-in-sweetene...
inciampati 3y ago
Putting chlorine in sugars that get metabolized seems to be a very bad idea because it leads to some very radical compounds getting loose in the cell.
- slashdev 3y ago
  Sucralose isn’t metabolized. The body excretes it in the same quantity you take in. Also table salt is half chlorine and not a health issue (at least not because it contains chlorine). The body is complex.