The Diabetes Forum Support Community For Diabetics Online banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
79 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
i dont know if this has been discussed before but my wife got some emails saying splenda will raise you sugar to dangerous levels my endo has never said anything about that subject anybody know :eek::eek:
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,162 Posts
They could be referring to the bulking agents that are used in packages of Splenda (I think maltodextrin or dextrose are used) which can have an effect on blood sugar. Liquid splenda shouldn't affect it at all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,076 Posts
I don't think so. Splenda cannot raise blood sugar. It is not digested or metabolized at all. It is a sugar molecule which has been chemically joined with a chlorine (!) molecule to form an entirely new molecule never before found in the universe let alone in the human body. It tastes like sugar in the mouth but cannot function as sugar in the GI and passes through unchanged.

I don't experience any problems with it. It tastes pretty good and I have no side effects. However, being a "franken-food" as described above, I am wary of it. I much prefer the NATURAL no-calorie sweetener stevia. Again, for me either is fine as far as taste or any unwanted effects (none in either case), but I feel safer with the product of nature over the product of some chemical laboratory.

In addition, splenda (sucralose) is still relatively new. What if the birth defects don't show up until the second or third generation? We'd have NO way to know that. Stevia, on the other hand aside from being something found in nature has been in use by South American natives for 1500 years and by tens of millions of Japanese for over 30 years without a single reported negative impact on health.

Several clinical trials indicate it may actually help issues relevant to diabetics like lowering blood sugar and strengthening or regenerating beta cells! (One of the uses in South America was as a medicinal plant for treating among other things diabetes.) No such thing has ever been found with any of the artificial sweeteners.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,368 Posts
The baking splenda does have a small amount of carbs but I have never had problem with it raising bg. How much splenda does she use in recipes. When I bake I usually only sub in half or less for normal sugar. If she is still using regular flour that is a much bigger danger.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
360 Posts
It is fine in small amounts but a cup has 24 carbs, I believe. Ask Shanny. I was really shocked. Can't remember which thread we discussed this in.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,076 Posts
Yes, but aren't those "carbs" some sort of sugar alcohol used for bulking? Even though those must be listed as "carbs" they are generally not metabolized - or only very fractionally - and so have nothing like the glucose impact of a similar amount of "real" carbs. They may BURN (in the calorimeter - hence the "calories") just fine, but they are not metabolize by the human body like naturally-occurring carbs.

I'm certainly not defending sugar alcohols and I don't like them, but to infer that n grams of one of them will effect BG like the same n grams of a normal carbohydrate I think is innacurate. They vary, but none result in much glucose at all with erythritol being at the very low end of the scale.

As for sucralose itself (which I beleive is available in pure form), humans can't metabolize it at all and so its glycemic impact is zero.


Livestrong.com says Splenda has 96 calories per cupful, and 24g of carb.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,394 Posts
My bag of granulated sucralose shows the primary ingredient as maltodextrin - a simple sugar, not a sugar alcohol. I use liquid sucralose sparingly because the granulated version spikes me. My husband was using the granules until he learned that sucralose is created by replacing three hydrogen-oxygen groups with chlorine atoms. Chlorine is poison, pure and simple (think of the poison gases used in WWI - the first one they used was chlorine gas).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,076 Posts
Wow, that's dumb. At least the mass-marketers of stevia products were smart enough to combine it with erythritol which has virtually zero glycemic value.

Yeah, even though the chlorine molecules are allegedly "safely" bound in the new franken-molecule they created, it's still pretty scary!


My bag of granulated sucralose shows the primary ingredient as maltodextrin - a simple sugar, not a sugar alcohol. I use liquid sucralose sparingly because the granulated version spikes me. My husband was using the granules until he learned that sucralose is created by replacing three hydrogen-oxygen groups with chlorine atoms. Chlorine is poison, pure and simple (think of the poison gases used in WWI - the first one they used was chlorine gas).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
561 Posts
Chlorine atoms naturally occur in food we eat every day, like salt. The chlorine atoms are not really the problem, although it has been argued that the bonding of carbon with chlorine atoms in Splenda is what makes it unsafe. Not really any evidence for that yet, but that's one of the objections right now.

I should also point out that, with anything toxic, the amount of exposure matters just as much as the substance. For example, many of us use bleach, window cleaners, and detergents that, in large enough quantity, could kill us. The trace amounts we ingest through daily or weekly use are not enough to harm us, though. An excessive amount of water will kill us, too, even though we need it to live and should consume it every day.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,076 Posts
I don't know of any evidence at all that sucralose is hazardous in any way. And although it is created in the chemistry lab by combining a toxic chemical with sugar in some kind of way, once the new molecule is created, it has its own properties and not the properties of chlorine from which it was partially made. I use it when nothing else is available.

The problem is not what we know but rather what we don't know. Unlike water, which has been consumed by humans since the very first one or nearly all naturally-occuring foods which have been eaten by millions for centuries, sucralose has only EXISTED in the universe for a few decades. It has no prior history either in the environment or in the human body/metabolism.

Such franken-foods clearly deserve more caution then products of nature consumed by millions of humans for centuries. Just as a general matter.

Thalidomide was "tested" and found to safe, in fact "safety" was its main lauded property - but look what happened. A pharmaceutical company's chemical lab should not be given the same trust as age-old foods and other natural substances IMO.



Chlorine atoms naturally occur in food we eat every day, like salt. The chlorine atoms are not really the problem, although it has been argued that the bonding of carbon with chlorine atoms in Splenda is what makes it unsafe. Not really any evidence for that yet, but that's one of the objections right now.

I should also point out that, with anything toxic, the amount of exposure matters just as much as the substance. For example, many of us use bleach, window cleaners, and detergents that, in large enough quantity, could kill us. The trace amounts we ingest through daily or weekly use are not enough to harm us, though. An excessive amount of water will kill us, too, even though we need it to live and should consume it every day.
 
G

·
Quite true and losing sweet tooth is easy enough easier than trying to deal with unforeseen issues that could creep up as a result of consuming these "Patented For Profits" chemicals. Read it somewhere on Splenda/Sucralose -- bonds holding the carbon and chlorine atoms together are more characteristic of a chlorocarbon than a salt — and most "pesticides" are chlorocarbons.

I'm forced to vote for the second part - lose the sweet tooth! I don't trust the chemical industry - anything they have a hand in leaves me worried!
John
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,394 Posts
Quite true and losing sweet tooth is easy enough easier than trying to deal with unforeseen issues that could creep up as a result of consuming these "Patented For Profits" chemicals. Read it somewhere on Splenda/Sucralose -- bonds holding the carbon and chlorine atoms together are more characteristic of a chlorocarbon than a salt — and most "pesticides" are chlorocarbons.
Yep - this is where the old woodchopper's thoughts went . . . carbon tetrachloride, DDT, etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,076 Posts
I use it every single day in my espresso. The pure and natural one which is a direct water extract of a plant and only filtered to remove foreign particles. No chemical processing at all. It's delicious, I'd find it difficult to drink my double espresso without it and it is completely natural.

IT IS NOT AN ARTIFICIAL SWEETENER. It is simply a food which tastes really sweet but produces no glucose. It absolutely does not even belong in the same category with sucralose, saccharine, aspertame, sorbitol, malitol, xylitol or ANY of the artificial sweeteners cooked up in some chemical lab.

Not only is it not harmful to diabetics or anyone else, there is mounting evidence of actual BENEFIT to sugar levels, insulin resistance and other issues T2s have to contend with. In that sense, it is quite the OPPOSITE not only of sugar but of ALL the artificial sweeteners as well.

However, don't confuse stevia with commercial products like Truvia or PureVia. These products not only have fillers (which are usually actual "artifical" sweeteners) but have also been subjected to chemical modification (of the stevia extract itself).


I do prefer Stevia too. I try not to use it very often, only when I really REALLY need it.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top