Any views on the safety of Splenda?

I did link a newspaper article on the subject above - this might be the study you're referring to ?

Celia

I did link a newspaper article on the subject above - this might be the study you're referring to ?

Celia

Yes, the newspaper article referenced the study. I will have to order the original paper.

Robin wrote: [/quote]Okay, I've got to ask ... am I silly for feeling that there's no point in substituting any chemistry set product for natural sugar? I don't sweeten my coffee or tea, and rarely indulge in desserts. But in general, I like to use natural products, not substitutes, on what I cook and eat. I'm not trying to stir the pot here, but unless one is under doctor's orders for a specific ailment or condition, what's the point in substitutes? (Same kind of question goes for butter vs margarines and "health" spreads, etc.)[/quote]

I have found a great natural alternative to sugar called Agave Nectar. It is not as thick as honey and has a great flavor. I use it over sliced strawberries, black berries and tart fruit that needs a little assist. It looks like honey but is quite thinner, easier to blend into things. It was in a local grocery store closer to the baking section and sugar section. Definitely not alongside the honey. It blends very nicely and is smoother than sprinkling sugar over something.

Abstract from the original paper.

: Behav Neurosci. 2008 Feb;122(1):161-73.
A role for sweet taste: Calorie predictive relations in energy regulation by rats.

Swithers SE, Davidson TL.
Department of Psychological Sciences.
Animals may use sweet taste to predict the caloric contents of food. Eating sweet noncaloric substances may degrade this predictive relationship, leading to positive energy balance through increased food intake and/or diminished energy expenditure. These experiments were designed to test the hypothesis that experiences that reduce the validity of sweet taste as a predictor of the caloric or nutritive consequences of eating may contribute to deficits in the regulation of energy by reducing the ability of sweet-tasting foods that contain calories to evoke physiological responses that underlie tight regulation. Adult male Sprague-Dawley rats were given differential experience with a sweet taste that either predicted increased caloric content (glucose) or did not predict increased calories (saccharin). We found that reducing the correlation between sweet taste and the caloric content of foods using artificial sweeteners in rats resulted in increased caloric intake, increased body weight, and increased adiposity, as well as diminished caloric compensation and blunted thermic responses to sweet-tasting diets. These results suggest that consumption of products containing artificial sweeteners may lead to increased body weight and obesity by interfering with fundamental homeostatic, physiological processes. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2008 APA, all rights reserved).

Thank you, Greg.

To respond to Stuart - who knows I am a physicist - I have confidence (rather than belief) in science. Hence, upon reconsideration, Stuart found the key phrase in my original post. I was careful!

Nutrition studies, such as the one cited, especially when combined with psychological effects, more generally show correlative behaviors rather than causal explanations. In terms of epidemiology, my hypothesis is intended to apply to human populations. There may be exceptions, of course, because people are capable of acting intelligent rather than on instinct. However, consider the fact that advertisers know how to manipulate large population groups to behave in a manner that is not in their best interest. Advertising works, it is effective, and it is borne out by scientific data.

I still maintain that the corn sweetener industry has manipulated human tastes and developed psychological dependencies to consume empty calories as a matter of habit, not necessarily conscious choice. I further maintain that personal anecdote by knowlegeable foodies (exercising conscious choice) is not a test of my hypothesis. I think the referenced study provides some supporting evidence to my hypothesis, but it is not in itself a proper test.

For me, I just choose to occasionally indulge in a soda--but I don't want the calories you might get from a regular..Those calories can add up fast...so even if I'm just trading one soda in for a diet soda--well, I get those calories touse on a good glass ofwine.

Sometimes I just jones for a Diet Dr. Pepper or a Diet Dr. Brown Cream Ale.

b

Barb,
I do not get it. How does someone yearn for a diet drink? What I think you are yearning for is the original, sugar sweetened beverage, but you are consciously substituting the dietetic version because you think it is less unhealthy.
Bernard

Bernie, you're right, you don't get it. So stop trying to.

Barb,
I do not get it. How does someone yearn for a diet drink? What I think you are yearning for is the original, sugar sweetened beverage, but you are consciously substituting the dietetic version because you think it is less unhealthy.
Bernard

I like Diet Coke; I don't like regular Coke. Ergo, I do not yearn for the original.

The original Coke isn't original anyway unless you buy Kosher Coke or get some from Mexico. Years ago, they switched from sugar to high-fructose corn syrup.

I like Diet Coke; I don't like regular Coke. Ergo, I do not yearn for the original.

I'm with you Larry. I like Diet Coke, too. I just plain don't like "sugared" cola drinks. Now I do like Mt. Dew, Mello Yello and Ginger Ale with sugar. Go figure. I don't drink them often for calorie reasons.

I started drinking diet drinks in the early 80s when they still used saccharin. Then they switched to a combination of saccharin and aspartame. That was the best! I've tried the Diet Coke with Splenda, but there is an after taste I don't get with regular Diet Coke. Have you tried the Splenda version?

[Robin Garr]

The original Coke isn't original anyway unless you buy Kosher Coke or get some from Mexico. Years ago, they switched from sugar to high-fructose corn syrup.

Even up here in whitebread country, the Latino taquerias almost invariably sell Coke hecho en Mexico, as well as cane-sugar flavored Jarritos soft drinks. I rarely if ever enjoy sweet drinks, but I do think a Jarritos Tamarindo, with its nice combination of sweet and sour, makes a great pairing with Puebla-style tacos. The real-sugar Coke seems to me to taste much better than the US variety, too, but this may just be magical thinking.

Nothing magical, side-by-side they're easy to tell apart.

[David M. Bueker]

Barb,
I do not get it. How does someone yearn for a diet drink? What I think you are yearning for is the original, sugar sweetened beverage, but you are consciously substituting the dietetic version because you think it is less unhealthy.
Bernard

Nope. I just get bored with water (which I drink a lot of).

I like Diet Coke; I don't like regular Coke. Ergo, I do not yearn for the original.

I'm with you Larry. I like Diet Coke, too. I just plain don't like "sugared" cola drinks. Now I do like Mt. Dew, Mello Yello and Ginger Ale with sugar. Go figure. I don't drink them often for calorie reasons.

I started drinking diet drinks in the early 80s when they still used saccharin. Then they switched to a combination of saccharin and aspartame. That was the best! I've tried the Diet Coke with Splenda, but there is an after taste I don't get with regular Diet Coke. Have you tried the Splenda version?

Yeah, but I don't remember what it tastes like. In general, artificial sweeteners are synergistic in effect and if they use several in combination, not as much has to be used, which lessens any aftertaste.

Saccharin never went away. It's in several things, including toothpaste.

I drink a lot of water too, but every once in a while it's nice to have something cold, flavorful, and bubbly.

And unfortunately they won't let me drink Champagne at work.

I started drinking diet drinks in the early 80s when they still used saccharin. Then they switched to a combination of saccharin and aspartame. That was the best! I've tried the Diet Coke with Splenda, but there is an after taste I don't get with regular Diet Coke. Have you tried the Splenda version?

Linda,

I think you misremember.

First they used saccharin, because it was all that was available. It was ghastly. It had a bitter aftertaste. The original TAB from the Coca Cola Corporation was an example of this awful stuff.

Then they used a combination of cyclamates and saccharin. This was pure genius and bliss! The cyclamates eliminated the bitterness of the saccharin. It was almost as good as real sugar. TOO good, for the sugar industry. They dug up studies linking cyclamate/saccharin with cancer. Since saccharin was already on the "generally recognized as safe" (GRAS) list, cyclamates were blamed for the carcinogenic effect. They were promptly banned by Congress, at the behest of the sugar lobby. A decade later--oops!--turns out that the SACCHARIN was to blame for the carcinogenic effects. Cyclamates were innocuous. But they remain banned, because they are TOO GOOD as a sugar substitute.

The sugar industry can tolerate aspartame, because it has an aftertaste of its own that many (I am one of them) find objectionable. The cyclamate/saccharin combination didn't have this problem.

Plus there's the problem that aspartame produces downright dangerous compounds if you cook with it.

In a sane world, we'd have cyclamates back, and saccharin would be banned. But the sugar industry won't have that, because saccharin tastes foul, whereas cyclamates are just extremely sweet and need to be cut a lot.

Bah!

-Paul W.

Nothing magical, side-by-side they're easy to tell apart.

Just had two cokes, one sweetened with sugar, the other with high fructose corn syrup. I agree with you, Stuart, they do taste different.

AnecdotaI…but I use one pack of Splenda in a large travel mug of coffee in the morning on the way to work. No problems. So when I began drinking a Whey Protien supplement prior to working out, it needed something..anything (absolutely awful tasting stuff) After trying several flavorings, I found a Splenda based, zero fat, zero sugar chocolate flavored syrup that worked the best…tastewise. Two medium sized squirts into the whey, shake and go.

Except that within 15-20 minutes comes intestinal problems (bloating, belching etc..). I switched back to one of the other less tasty artificially sweetened flavors and it went away.

Richard

My favorite childhood drink was Fresca with cyclamates. Nothing since has equaled it.

I really don't comprehend the American soft drink addiction (and this from a guy who has been addicted to many things in his time.)

I especially don't get the diet drink thing.

I drink tons of liquids every day. Start my day with a pot of black coffee. Usually have some kind of fruit juice. Maybe some skim milk. (No hormones or antibiotics.) None of those beverages is water.

My feeling on that is I can double up and hydrate with something that's actually nutritional, with good calories (and is mostly water anyway.)

And none of my beverages are soft drinks. There are dozens of fruit juices that have very sweet components if that what one is looking for.

I find this whole thing kinda silly.

The sugar industry can tolerate aspartame, because it has an aftertaste of its own that many (I am one of them) find objectionable. The cyclamate/saccharin combination didn't have this problem.

Plus there's the problem that aspartame produces downright dangerous compounds if you cook with them.

In a sane world, we'd have cyclamates back, and saccharin would be banned. But the sugar industry won't have that, because saccharin tastes fowl, whereas cyclamates are just extremely sweet and need to be cut a lot.

Saccharin tastes like chicken??? Next thing, Paul, you'll be arguing for the return of Red Dye #2 And you forgot to mention that sucralose (Splenda™) is equally acceptable to the sugar producers because it's a value-added version of table sugar. Win Win!!

Mark Lipton
(no sodas, no diet, no diabetes, so I don't know what the hell any of them taste like, thankyouverymuch)

Spelling mistake corrected.

-Paul W.

First they used saccharin, because it was all that was available. It was ghastly. It had a bitter aftertaste. The original TAB from the Coca Cola Corporation was an example of this awful stuff.

Then they used a combination of cyclamates and saccharin. This was pure genius and bliss! The cyclamates eliminated the bitterness of the saccharin. It was almost as good as real sugar. TOO good, for the sugar industry. They dug up studies linking cyclamate/saccharin with cancer. Since saccharin was already on the "generally recognized as safe" (GRAS) list, cyclamates were blamed for the carcinogenic effect. They were promptly banned by Congress, at the behest of the sugar lobby. A decade later--oops!--turns out that the SACCHARIN was to blame for the carcinogenic effects. Cyclamates were innocuous. But they remain banned, because they are TOO GOOD as a sugar substitute.

The sugar industry can tolerate aspartame, because it has an aftertaste of its own that many (I am one of them) find objectionable. The cyclamate/saccharin combination didn't have this problem.

Plus there's the problem that aspartame produces downright dangerous compounds if you cook with it.

In a sane world, we'd have cyclamates back, and saccharin would be banned. But the sugar industry won't have that, because saccharin tastes foul, whereas cyclamates are just extremely sweet and need to be cut a lot.
-Paul W.

FYI

Saccharin

Discovered in 1879. Three hundred times sweeter than sugar, saccharin tastes sweet at very low concentrations, but has marked, metallic after-taste at higher concentrations. Used in a wide variety of food and health products, including soft drinks, toothpastes and mouthwashes.

One of the most studied ingredients in the food chain, saccharin was the focus of a bladder cancer controversy two decades ago. But saccharin is absent two major carcinogenic characteristics: it's not metabolized nor does it react with DNA. The controversy rested upon studies in which cancer-sensitive rat strains were fed the human equivalent of hundreds of cans of soft drinks per day for a lifetime. Even then, only some of the male rats developed bladder tumors. Regardless, saccharin was banned in the United States in 1977.

Considerable research on saccharin indicates safety at human levels of consumption (average users ingest less than an ounce per year). The American Medical Association (AMA), American Diabetes Association, American Cancer Society, et al. believed that saccharin posed little or no risk, resulting in its removal from the federal National Toxicology Program's carcinogen list in 2000. Saccharin's mandatory warning label requirement was also repealed.

Cyclamate

Discovered in 1937, was first used in the United States in the early '50s. Cyclamate is only about 30 times as sweet as sucrose and is the least sweet of the high-intensity sweeteners, but it's heat and cold stable, and has synergistic sweetening power with other sweeteners. Cyclamate is not metabolized in most people, but a small percentage does metabolize some of what they consume.

Cyclamate was implicated as a possible carcinogen and banned in the United States in 1970. However, more than 50 countries worldwide still use cyclamates as an approved substance.

Aspartame

Discovered in 1965 and 180 times sweeter than sugar. Approved by the FDA in 1981 after 16 years and more than 200 human and animal studies. Trademarked as NutraSweet, aspartame is made by joining two amino acids (L-phenylalanine and L-aspartic acid) that are found naturally in meat, milk, fruit, and vegetables. When aspartame is digested, the body treats it like any other amino acid.

However, person born with the rare disease phenylketonuria (PKU) can't metabolize phenylalanine properly and must avoid any foods and beverages containing aspartame.

Because aspartame is not heat stable, it loses its sweetness at cooking temperatures and is not suitable for cooking or baking unless it's added after the product has cooled. Aspartame's sweetness also diminishes after long storage periods.

Some consumers have complained of adverse reactions after eating aspartame, generally centering on potentially harmful effects of its breakdown components: methanol, aspartic acid and phenylalanine. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) reviewed 517 complaints in 1984 and found "[no] evidence of serious, widespread, adverse health consequences...." In 1985, the AMA came to the same conclusion.

The FDA has noted, however, that with any food, "there is the possibility [of an] occasional sensitivity...." Focused clinical studies and the FDA continue to review consumer complaints, but no causal link has been found to date. More than 100 countries have found aspartame safe to use.

The Acceptable Daily Intake, or ADI (the amount that can be safely consumed every day for a lifetime), of aspartame is 50 mg/kg of body weight. Aspartame's ADI is based on human tests where subjects received single doses four times the ADI (the equivalent of 70 cans of soft drinks) and animal tests that used 160 times the ADI (2800 cans of soft drinks) every day for more than two years.

Sucralose (Splenda)

One of the newest artificial sweeteners. Discovered in 1976 and approved by the FDA in 1998. Sucralose is the only artificial sweetener made from sugar: three chlorine atoms are substituted for three hydoxyl groups on the sugar molecule, which yields a no-calories sweetener that is 600 times sweeter than sugar.

Sucralose underwent more than 100 studies over 20 years, demonstrating no safety risks related to cancer, genetic effects, reproduction and fertility, birth defects, immunology, the central nervous system or metabolism.

Sucralose has a taste profile very similar to sugar, with no aftertaste, yet does not promote tooth decay. It's not metabolized in the body, and it passes through the body virtually unchanged. Because it's not recognized by the body as a sugar or carbohydrate, sucralose has no effect on glucose levels in either Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes.

It's exceptionally heat-stable.

_______________________________

From Greenly, LW: A Doctor's Guide to Sweeteners. JCM, June 2003.

For those of us who are weight-challenged, artificial sweeteners can be a good thing in the right application. I drink Diet Coke at work, because I am of the late Baby-Boomer generation, and was practically weaned on sugary Coke and Pepsi, and have carried that taste into adulthood. So Joseph, I can see your viewpoint, but there is a generational difference at work. You're much like my Dad in that respect.

I have wondered why, since Aspartame breaks down with heat, so many prepackaged "diet" food items use it as a sweetener. And soft drinks sweetened with Aspartame will lose their sweetness over time, although that could be a result of the cartons sitting in a hot warehouse for days or weeks, effectively becoming cooked.

I have never been bothered by the sacharrine aftertaste, and routinely use it to sweeten iced tea when dining out, since it dissolves faster and more completely than Aspartame or Splenda, and doesn't have the empty calories as does sugar (which can only be thoroughly dissolved in iced tea if stirred in immediately after brewing, while the tea is still hot).

Splenda can make soft drinks too sweet for my taste, although the fruit-flavored Diet Rite sodas and Fresca taste pretty good to me (and don't have caffeine, which can give me heart palpitations if I have too much in a short period). I have used Splenda in cooking before, with mixed results, and I need to experiment with some different desserts before I'm sold on it.