Does it Work?Unsure if the latest product or service lives up to it's claims? From popular products to the latest scams, discuss it here before you buy!
Bah. Water is a chemical. And arsenic is completely natural. Just throwing a lable on something and appealing to a stereotype isn't really the same thing as making an informed choice.
Just for the record, I am a sugar gal. I've never found a substitute for the real thing that I cared for, so I simply eat less sweets now. But not because the word "chemical" scares me.
I'm not scared of chemicals, sometimes on the weekends I quite enjoy them. I haven't tried Splenda yet & don't plan to. I don't avoid artificial sweeteners, but I'm not going to purchase them either. I guess you could say I'm indifferent. I think if you want to have a Coke, have a Coke, one of those half-cans. B/c if that's what you're craving, Diet Coke doesn't taste anything like it & you're still going to be craving the Coke.
I read something somewhere once about the carbonation eating away @ calcium stores, wonder if there's any truth to that. Guess I should check out snopes or maybe start a new thread.
PS--I knew I should've posted a pic of Mr Mackey from South Park w/my original post.
I have no desire to become a statistic in what the Pentagon refers to as "collateral damage." So I have always been careful to stay well out of the line of fire whenever and wherever combatants are combating. Thus far, I have avoided being wounded in the food fight between fats and carbs by maintaining a position of strict neutrality.
But there is one currently raging conflict into which I shall leap. I have no sentiment for either side, but I am in the role of what amounts to an arms dealer, because I have important weapons to offer both. The war to which I refer is a chemical one, but its combatants are lobbing lawsuits, not missiles.
The Defense
Primarily in a defensive posture (although also in suing mode) is McNeil Nutritionals LLC, a Johnson & Johnson company that markets the artificial sweetener sucralose. Sucralose is manufactured by the British firm Tate & Lyle PLC and sold under the brand name Splenda.
Sales of Splenda currently far exceed those of any other artificial sweetener, including Sweet'N Low, which contains saccharin; Sunett and Sweet One, which contain acesulfame K; and Equal and NutraSweet, which contain aspartame and had been the top sellers in America until Splenda came along.
The Offense
On the offensive against McNeil is not only its main competitor -- Merisant US Inc., makers of Equal and NutraSweet -- but the industry that produces real sugar, represented by the Sugar Association. The allegation is that Splenda's widely advertised slogan, "Made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar" is "deceptive and/or misleading."
Nobody questions whether Tate & Lyle's chemists actually do make sucralose from cane sugar, or sucrose. All McNeil will say about how they do that is to describe "a patented, multi-step process that selectively replaces three hydrogen-oxygen groups on the sugar molecule with three chlorine atoms." In more specific chemical terms: Eight of the sucrose molecule's 22 hydrogen atoms are paired with oxygen atoms as so-called hydroxyl groups, OH. Tate & Lyle's chemists replace three of those eight hydroxyl groups with chlorine atoms. (My guess is they do it by treating sucrose with hydrogen chloride.)
But isn't chlorine harmful to humans and animals and damaging to the environment?
In some forms, yes. For example, most common insecticides contain chlorine atoms in their molecules. And polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), an industrial byproduct, are among the most persistent environmental pollutants. But in other compounds, such as sodium chloride (table salt), the chlorine is not only harmless but essential to our health.
The Sugar Association's Web site makes the calculatedly alarming statement that when eating Splenda, consumers are "actually eating chlorine." Well, la-de-da. So are the consumers who are "actually eating" salt. My point is that chlorine is a common and versatile element that appears in hundreds of compounds with hundreds of different properties -- good, bad and indifferent.
The Weapons
So here is the weapon I offer to the Splenda forces: The Sugar Association's fright tactic against "eating chlorine" is misleading and disingenuous. And my chemical weapon for the Equal, NutraSweet and Sugar Association forces: Splenda's slogan, "made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar," is also misleading and disingenuous.
The lawyers may argue until they're blue in the face about whether Splenda really tastes like sugar, and I'm sure that a witness could be found to testify that it tastes like salt. But what does "tastes like" mean, anyway? Does it mean "tastes exactly like" or "tastes similar to"?
The Chemistry
But taste is not the point. To a chemist, it's the word "so" in the slogan. It implies that the taste of sucrose survives its chemical transformation into sucralose. But the implication that Splenda tastes like sugar because it was made from sugar flies in the face of what we know about chemical change: that changing any part of a molecule must invariably change its properties.
I can take some sugar into the laboratory, modify it chemically and wind up with something that tastes like almost anything you'd want -- or wouldn't want. For example, with nothing but a little sulfuric acid, I can turn sucrose into a steaming, seething, black mass that would dissolve your teeth if you tried to eat it.
So while I will swallow Splenda itself without concern (the Food and Drug Administration's imprimatur is good enough for me), I cannot swallow its slogan. I believe it is indeed misleading, just as alleged by the anti-Splenda forces. And while I'm at it, because all sugars (sucrose, glucose, fructose, maltose, etc.) have chemical names ending in -ose, naming the product sucralose is, again, disingenuous. Sweet it is, but a sugar it isn't.
Regarding the other arguments swirling around the bitter battle of the sweets -- whether or not sucralose is digested in the body and whether long-term human studies have shown its safety -- I hereby step adroitly out of the combat zone and assert my neutrality, inasmuch as these are not chemical issues.
I am a sugar person, I love sweet tea, and coffe...I bought Splenda, tried it and I love it! I use it on my bran flakes and my tea, heck my coffee too. I don't think it has a bad aftertaste at all, nothing at all like sweet & low or equal.
People are always trying to ruin something for someone...if you don't like it, don't use it, eat it or drink it...if you like it, enjoy it and just smile at the person trying to make you think your poisoning yourself...remember you too are eating or drinking something that someone has a problem with
I'm not scared of chemicals, sometimes on the weekends I quite enjoy them.
[snippage]
PS--I knew I should've posted a pic of Mr Mackey from South Park w/my original post.
I'm sorry if I seemed a bit short, but it does annoy me when I hear the word "chemical" misused in the common vernacular. You enjoy chemicals everyday, every second you draw a breath in fact. Yep, oxygen and nitrogen are both chemicals. You are made of chemicals. Chemicals are simply stuff. Ya, I probably enjoyed taking all those science classes in college just a little too much.
FWIW, I did catch the South Park referance. I have the show tivo'ed, in fact. It wouldn't have mattered how you couched it; I would have, and still do, take issue with the whole "chemicals are bad" sentiment.
I'm sitting here drinking my yogurt smoothie with Splenda, and I love it. Like Chrissy said, no matter what you eat or drink, someone somewhere will think it's dangerous. Not all natural products are good for you and not all processed products are bad for you. I'm sure something with no sugar or no sugar substitute at all would be better, but if I'm going to have something with a sugar substitute, it will always be Splenda. Why? Well, mainly because all of the other ones leave such a horrible aftertaste that I can't stomach any of the diet drinks. Of course, as much as I hate that flavor, there is someone else (like my mom) who is so used to having it that she prefers it to regular sugar. To each his (or her) own.
Splenda just seems to have too many objections right now. They are being attacked from all sides, yet they haven't made any statements or anything. It seems fishy to me. I am not a fan of all these starnge chemicals, especially when I used to be under the impression that it was natural.
I use splenda, and will continue to do so. Everything has side effects, most of them cause no harm to the vast majority of people. Have you ever read the side effects on a bottle of aspirin? Tylenol? Yet they are very beneficial to many people. I don't like the other sweetners, especially stevia, which has a bitter taste. Untill I get more information on splenda I will continue to use it. Oh, and I am a nurse. Why do you think that Dr.'s and nurses know more about nutrition than any one else?
3/4 cup sugar when/if I make a pitcher of Kool Aid.
I'm not going to spend 3 times as much on artificial sweetener when a bag of sugar lasts me 3+ years. I like my coffee, hot tea, iced tea etc unsweetened. Sugar just isn't an issue for me I guess.
Salt, on the other hand... especially salty carbs like buttered pasta or popcorn or chips or bread & butter, look out.
As a person who is allergic to every type of artificial sweetner I've tried.. I'm most definitely weary of them. My logic is simply, my body is sensitive, and if it has such a reaction with me, how can it be healthy? I also do my best to stay away from sugar all together... but we all do what works for us. So if Splenda or Aspartame works for you, thats your choice, and if it doesn't work for me, also my own choice to avoid them. Whats the point in attacking someone based on it? It's like religion.. touchy subject.. all my opinion of course.
Hi Everyone, I am new and came across this site looking for weight loss support and how people "diet" without artificial sweetners.
Basically, I am one of the few people out there that has severe adverse reactions to any kind of sugar subsitute. We are talking migraines, vomiting, nausea, etc. It just ain't pretty.
Anyway, any "diet" that I try to go on basically tells you drink "diet" soda, eat "diet" yogurt, etc. etc. etc. Well I can't have any of that, and I am tired of everyone just assuming that everyone can tolerate artifical sweetners. Everytime I say something it is like "Oh well, too bad for you, drink water and stop being upset about it."
I know moderation is the key, but does anyone out there have the same problem? Are there any "diet" products out there without the artificial sweetners, aspertame, splenda, etc?
For me, a lot of times it's worth it to just have the full calorie/full fat version and less of it. I notice if I drink too much flavored water in a day, I get a headache, and I can only assume that's from the Splenda. As long as I drink it in moderation though, I'm okay. I don't think any product that makes you sick is worth using anyway just because it's the diet version. You have to listen to your body and use common sense.
I don't know if there is anything that is low fat and low calorie as far as the diet products. You may need to start making your own smoothies with real fruit and such to get away from the other options. I'm pretty sure that the rice cakes I eat (caramel corn being so addictive that my 7 year old keeps finishing them off) don't have anything artificial though. They are low calorie and still really good.
Everyone who has an obsession or desire for "sweet" things be it artificial or not should read "Fat Land" as to learn the 'in your face' way about high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). I hear talk here that Coke contains sugar Not so! They stopped using sugar back in the 80's. It is all HFCS. Actually until the late 90's HFCS was in EVERYTHING. It has harmed all of us and caused an addictive desire for a sweet taste that isn't anywhere near natural and the body has no clue what to do with it. I have high hopes that Coke is introducing products this summer that will fill the void in my life after learning about HFCS and cutting most of it out. I say most bc I crave Coke and still have about one a week as a treat.
I was raised drinking Equal and now have turned to Splenda. My brother is a physician and father of four and they all drink ice tea sweetened with Splenda everyday. I am dying for Coke to release a product solely using it.
I was raised drinking Equal and now have turned to Splenda. My brother is a physician and father of four and they all drink ice tea sweetened with Splenda everyday. I am dying for Coke to release a product solely using it.
Coincidentally, I'm sitting here drinking my very first bottle of Diet Coke, sweetned exclusively with Splenda (sucralose) - it's the only sweetner listed on the label. Verdict? Love it!
Coincidentally, I'm sitting here drinking my very first bottle of Diet Coke, sweetned exclusively with Splenda (sucralose) - it's the only sweetner listed on the label. Verdict? Love it!
Well, shoot, Meg, I still like the *old* diet Coke formula! Haven't seen the new stuff around here for sale as yet...
Oooh, I don't think it's here yet, but I'll look for it! They announced the Coke-Splenda deal a few months ago, and expected it to prompt a shortage in Splenda for consumers. I stocked up
I haven't tried Splenda yet & don't plan to. I don't avoid artificial sweeteners, but I'm not going to purchase them either. I guess you could say I'm indifferent. I think if you want to have a Coke, have a Coke, one of those half-cans. B/c if that's what you're craving, Diet Coke doesn't taste anything like it & you're still going to be craving the Coke. 
