Any views on the safety of Splenda?

Someone asked me a question about its use, and I've only got industrial and FDA info. Thanks, Bob

Bob, this article appeared in our Sydney Morning Herald just a few days ago.

I used to use splenda in coffee, but I gave up. I figured since I was using real sugar in, oh, the cookies, brownies, muffins, cakes and so on, that saving the teaspoon in my coffee once a day wasn't going to help me much.

I don't find all the claims particularly credible

http://www.splendaexposed.com/

As a Biochemist, I have to look for support for these ideas in "real" journals. As a gullible human being, I stopped using artificial sweeteners for several years until recently. Then I noticed that ONE non-diet Pepsi was 3 weight watcher points. Good grief! These drinks just aren't that much fun, I would much rather spend my 3 points on wine or chocolate. So I am going back to Diet Pepsi or Pepsi One. I haven't tasted enough of either to decide which.

At any rate, websites like the one above are enough to make anyone worry a little. But I think it's in the same category as the idea that taking a sandwich to work in a plastic Glad Bag will give you cancer from the plasticizers. Bunk.

F

I use Stevia. Here is a link that will tell you a little more about it.

http://v.mercola.com/QA/Stevia-s-Safety-2074.aspx

Bob, this article appeared in our Sydney Morning Herald just a few days ago.

I used to use splenda in coffee, but I gave up. I figured since I was using real sugar in, oh, the cookies, brownies, muffins, cakes and so on, that saving the teaspoon in my coffee once a day wasn't going to help me much.

"C", you could have been using Splenda in all those goodies too.

My (admittedly long ago) undergrad degree was in Biochemistry.

I think Splenda's brilliant.

It tastes sweet. It's not metabolizable by human beings. It doesn't form dangerous compounds when cooked.

Sounds pretty good to me, given that the Sugar Lobby won't let them bring back cyclamates (whose only drawback was that they worked too well for the Sugar Lobby).

-Paul W.

[David M. Bueker]

I gave up aspartame a while back for splenda. Since I am not a lab rat & don't consume 10 times my body weight of either I don't worry all that much about any health scare hype. But I do like splenda better.

[Robin Garr]

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.)

Calories, for me. Life, for a diabetic.

I will admit to being a diet soda junkie- if I were drinking the sugared stuff, I'd have no teeth and would indeed weigh 277 pounds.

[David M. Bueker]

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.

You should recuse yourself from a dogmatic type of discussion if you are not someone who would normally use a sweetener in the first place. Some of us enjoy a sweetener in coffee, or a soda or dessert, and are trying to avoid blowing up like balloons.

[Robin Garr]

Calories, for me. Life, for a diabetic.

Er, that's why I said "unless one is under doctor's orders for a specific ailment or condition".

I'm not under a doctor's orders, I just don't want to weigh 277.

I often wonder about every product safety question that gets asked. What, I wonder are people trying to avoid or trying to accomplish with a particular product investigation. I see avid smokers who will give every argument in the book for why you should avoid every other kind of chemical ingredient in the food you eat. I see people pass me in cars who are wearing seat belts as they text message or work a crossword puzzle while merging into highway traffic. By not consuming Splenda what do you think you will avoid? And, are you certain you will not pick that thing up from something else. As Americans, I think we are too consumed with suspicion and the idea of danger in everything around us. Somehow, no matter what we do, we are not going to be around to see how it all ends. Relax and enjoy the ride. It is over too soon to sweat the small stuff.

Relax and enjoy the ride. It is over too soon to sweat the small stuff.

I'll have to soften that thought a bit, Jo Ann, for the lady who sent me the question -- she told me someone had just told her to "suck it up and forget about it" about another of her questions. But I like the thought as a closer to the general sense here that it's ok. I use it, but will take a look at Stevia.

Having spent five days on the South Beach approach, I wonder though is no cal sweeteners really help people maintain or lose weight. I have the impression that for me no sweetness in food or drink is no deprivation; if I add a sweetener, I wonder if it doesn't keep the desire for sweet tastes alive?

I'm going to do a bit of searching and see if there are any studies on the subject. It's not clear to me though who would fund such a study. Bob

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.)

Yes, Robin. Go off and feel silly.

I agree with you fully that a dish is best when it's made with the original, natural products. There are Chinese pastries where there is absolutely no substitute for lard. French puff pastry is best made with real butter. And so on down the line.

That being said, what do you do if you're a diabetic, and you can't have real sugar? Do you simply deny yourself the pleasure of sweet things? I have no problem with people who find themselves in such circumstances substituting Splenda as a sweetener in place of the sugar that they can't use.

Ditto those unfortunates who have to watch their cholesterol intake. There are plant sterols that don't have the metabolic health consequences of cholesterol, but behave identically in recipes. So why not use them, if the alternative is avoiding the food altogether?

There have been some ghastly chemical monstrosities perpetrated in the name of better health, it is true. On the list of ignominy are margarine (laced with trans-fats that are far worse than the unsaturated fats you'd otherwise have) and saccharin (a carcinogen). And aspartame can't be used in cooking (and it simply tastes awful as a sugar substitute otherwise), or it becomes highly dangerous. And as for olestra--let's not go there (lest we be going for the rest of the evening. ).

Artificial sweeteners have their place for those who can't handle the real thing. And among artificial sweeteners, Splenda is the closest match to real sugar that I've seen so far.

-Paul W.

A recent study, albeit with rats, showed that use of artificial sweeteners can INCREASE calorie intake and weight gain.

I have a different hunch. I think that artificial sweeteners placate a sweet tooth that was developed as a juvenile and has not been resolved by maturation into adulthood. That sweet tooth causes a preference for overly sweet food. This in turn causes the individual to think that sweetness is a natural component to more foods and dishes than is necessary. This, in turn, causes people to indulge in contrived and over-processed foods that have extra "sweet" calories, and to think that the absence of sweetness is a fault.

Thus, people end up consuming a bevy of factory foods that are bulked up with corn sweeteners and don't bat an eye because it doesn't seem as if so many food really are sweetener-enhanced. Why, for example, is Prego pasta sauce bulked up with corn sweetener? How about salad dressings? Go down the list of foods that appear normal, but they are tailored to the industrially-shaped American palate.

So my take is that Splenda is part of the problem, not the solution. The more you pander to your childhood sweet tooth, the less likely you are to prefer and enjoy foods that are naturally flavored without sweeteners.

In other words, the chemical won't kill you but the habit will harm you.

I have some trouble with that hypothesis (there are some interesting echoes of Freud's anal fixation thing there...). I like diet soda, artificially sweetened and everything. But I'm not much of a dessert person, I drink my coffee black, and I can't think of anything I cook that has sugar in it.

Nope, I don't think it's that simple, Bernie.

I was thinking the same thing, Stuart. I think Bernie is barking up the wrong tree.
I have a sweet tooth as he describes. But I satisfy it with sweets - especially my dark master, chocolate. (thank you, Kramer).
I also drink my coffee unsweetened, and the only use I can think of for canned diet soda would be to throw it at someone's head.

I don't like sweet in things that should be savory, such as salad dressings tricked out with corn syrup. Prego? Not on my watch.

I think a judicious use of Splenda as a means to trim caloric intake for those who would otherwise ingest the empty calories of refined sugar is a safe and sane plan.

Me? I use the real thing, or nothing.

A recent study, albeit with rats, showed that use of artificial sweeteners can INCREASE calorie intake and weight gain.

Not completely confident in my overlapping circles here, but hell, I've never let that stop me in the past.

If youse guys disagree with Bernie's take, then you agree with his initial statement? There might be validity to the study?

I can't answer that, Joseph. I haven't read the study so I don't know exactly what the hypothesis was, how it was tested, the significance of the results, and how it might correlate with humans.

That said, I do believe in physics- fewer calories and the same or greater energy expenditure will NOT lead to weight gain.

If youse guys disagree with Bernie's take, then you agree with his initial statement? There might be validity to the study?

Hard to comment without reading the study, but from my observation, some people get a false sense of security when using low calorie or "lite" products. Thinking of these foods as safe, they consume too much and wind up taking in too many calories.

I probably shouldn't be commenting on this thread at all until I lose 50 lbs.

That said, I do believe in physics- fewer calories and the same or greater energy expenditure will NOT lead to weight gain.

Stuart, as logical as this statement seems, even it may not be completely true. Animals, including humans, have mechanisms that adjust their basal metabolic rate depending on energy sources available. The same number of calories, as determined in a calorimeter, may have quite different biological effects when consumed by an animal.

I understand that. That's why I didn't exclude the possibility that this study might show a metabolic adjustment resulting from Splenda. But as I said, I haven't seen it or even an abstract.

Absent a direct metabolic effect of Splenda, if one saves 5% of caloric intake (and being humans, we can consciously not increase our caloric intake from other sources), will the metabolism reset? I suspect not, but it's well out of my area of expertise, so I'd love to be educated here.

edit: I see Bernie said, "increase caloric intake." OK, right there is the answer.

I understand that. That's why I didn't exclude the possibility that this study might show a metabolic adjustment resulting from Splenda. But as I said, I haven't seen it or even an abstract.

Absent a direct metabolic effect of Splenda, if one saves 5% of caloric intake (and being humans, we can consciously not increase our caloric intake from other sources), will the metabolism reset? I suspect not, but it's well out of my area of expertise, so I'd love to be educated here.

edit: I see Bernie said, "increase caloric intake." OK, right there is the answer.

These are difficult studies to do and are often done in animals, like rats or mice, who have a very different metabolism than humans. In addition, many of the studies are done in in-bred animals which improves the reproducibility of the study. Humans, however, vary a great deal more than the animals used in the study. Therefore, the translation of animal based metabolic studies to all humans is not always reliable.

I have just seen the news reports on this study, but have not read it. I will do that when I get a chance.