Spenda was supposed to be the new sweetner that was not “bad” for you like Nutrasweet or Equal.
What seems interesting is that they claim no calories, and yet maltodextrin is one of the few ingredients. Maltodextrin seems to be a common source of complex carbs in our energy drings. What’s the deal?
Also, is there anything bad about it (health wise)? Any claims or studies about this stuff yet?
I saw this stuff and was confused about what it was. I took it to be another fat substitue like that “Noline” stuff or whatever it was called they used in potatoe chips. That was a flop.
I don’t know anything about this Splenda. I learned more in your post than I knew before reading it.
It’s the brand name for sucralose which is refined from actual sugar. It’s recommended by some nutritionists as being bad for you than some other sweeteners eg. aspartame.
I was considering changing from +10 packages of suger in my coffee to Splenda, but did some web research. I recommend doing that also. I have decide to stay with suger, but just cut back (not yet totally successful). But, there’s not enough studies done, but the few have shown neurological side effects.
Chris
Check out this link and the others it refers to:
neurological side effects.
What studies are those?
I don’t mean to be a jerk, but I think websites like that are generally garbage. People should look for scientific studies or at the very least recommendations from accountable and respected organizations. The American Dietetic Association and the FDA haven’t found any serious problems with sucralose - why should I believe that the authors of that webiste are more qualified. From the language on the site it’s clear to see these poeple are not scientists.
Here’s some info from a very recent ADA paper on sweeteners
Sucralose is 600 times sweeter than sucrose; it has a disaccharide structure in which three chlorine molecules replace three hydroxyl groups (chemical name trichlorogalactosucrose). Sucralose provides essentially no energy: it is poorly absorbed (range 11% to 27%) and excreted unchanged in the feces. Any absorbed sucralose is excreted in the urine unchanged. This sweetener is heat stable in cooking and baking. Stability testing suggests insignificant formation of compounds from sucralose degradation (4-chloro-4-deoxy-galactose and 1,6-dichloro-1,6-dideoxyfructose); these products are formed under prolonged storage at elevated temperatures and in a highly acidic environment.
Sucralose was approved in April 1998 as a tabletop sweetener and for use in a number of desserts, confections, and nonalcoholic beverages. In 1999, sucralose was approved as a general-purpose sweetener. FDA concluded from a review of more than 110 studies in human beings and animals that this sweetener did not pose carcinogenic, reproductive, or neurologic risk to human beings 102]. At this time, the FDA determined that the EDI at the 90th percentile for consumers 2 years of age and older was 1.6 mg/kg bw/day. The ADI for sucralose is 5 mg/kg bw/day 103]. The EDI at the 90th percentile has a sweetness that would be equivalent to the total amount of nutritive sweetener commonly added to the diet.
In a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study, sucralose at 3 times the maximum EDI for 3 months had no significant effect on glucose homeostasis in individuals with type 2 diabetes 104].
Consumers can use sucralose in granular form for measuring and pouring like table sugar and in packets in powder form. The bulking agents used in these consumer products are in such small quantity that sucralose meets the FDA labeling requirements as a “no calorie” sweetener with an insignificant energy value per serving. For example, the sweetening equivalent of 2 pounds of sugar (770 kcal) is 3.8 oz of sucralose plus the bulking agent (96 kcal). Sucralose is heat stable and thus can be the sweetening agent in desserts and baked goods.
================================
Disclaimer - I’ve never used this (I like real sugar) and have no interest in the company
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (nutritionally oriented lobby group) recently published a decent summary of the different sweeteners that are currently available, and indicated which are safe and not, based on up-to-date studies.
Check it out at http://www.cspinet.org/nah/05_04/sweet_nothings.pdf
ccy
This is not a scientific response, but…
My wife was doing some of the low carb stuff for a bit last year. She got really hungry and ate a few extra of the Splenda sweetened Atkins bars for a snack. It gave her some SERIOUS stomach bloat (we are talkin’ big round belly followed by hours of gas release.)
I think since it travels unchanged through the body some people’s stomachs do not react very well to Splenda. I would say use it with caution if you are already subject to stomach discomfort during longer workouts/races.
I’m investigating this now. My wife recommended it since she’s putting me on the South Beach diet (excuse me, putting us on the SBD).
Fine, I’ll try anything once - no calories, blah blah.
One packet into my 12 oz. dark roast - nothing. Another packet - nada. Another packet - still nothing.
After the fourth packet I gave up and poured in some sugar - now that’s the stuff.
Wife comes home that night - “so honey guess what I found out”. I bite - what?
Sugar and chlorine. This is per the RD that works at her club. She didn’t have any more info, but needless to say I switched to Stevia the next day.
id like to know how these studies into artifical sweeteners are conducted. i mean everyone has seen the effects of too much sugar sweetened stuff on obese kids. surely based on that we could say that sugar is in fact quite bad for you.