Would Splenda promote the same rate of decay as sugar? What about other artificial sweeteners?
Good question…I’d say yes since bacteria are known for being able to digest sugers that humans cannot. Dunno for sure though.
Splenda or sucralose, although derived from sugar, is not sugar, so provides no nutritive value to any bacteria that might reside in your mouth.
Is it chemically impossible that something could break it down and derive energy from it, or is it just that they don’t at the moment? We could also have described Nylon as non-nutritive, but some bacteria (not those commonly present in the human mouth, obviously) would disagree.
It was my understanding that the key to Splenda is the substitution of a Clorine atom where another atom would normally be found (I think Hydrogen, but it could be Oxygen). This substitution causes a conformational change in the molecule and prevents it from being “cleaved”, by the enzymes in your body (amylase in the mouth). However, there are some who have concerns about the safety of Sucralose http://www.holisticmed.com/splenda/ with regard to issues like Thymus gland shrinkage (in pre-approval testing a significant percentage of rats fed sucralose had Thymus glands that shrunk the manufacturer said that this was due to caloric restriction since many rats did not care for the taste of Splenda and thus did not eat as much as normal). Then again there are some who have concerns about the safety of everything! Furthermore, we know that sugar can have adverse health effects on the body as well.
However, in the final analysis one should weight the relative benefits of taking a product verses the relative benefits. To the extent that it is possible perhaps one should consume water, rather than any substance containing artificial sweetners (or sugar). Then again the same people with concerns about Splenda have a plethora of concerns about most water ranging from flouride to PCB’s. Life is dangerous game with a guarenteed negative outcome.
Actually, it seems that it is Oxygen which Chlorine subs for in sucralose. Sucralose is the only calorie-free sweetener made from surcrose. It is produced using a patented multi-step process that selectively substitutes three, particular atoms of chlorine for three hydrogen-oxygen groups on the sucrose molecule. The tightly bound chlorine atoms create a molecular structure that is exceptionally stable under extreme pH and temperature conditions and is 600 times sweeter than sugar. At least that is what the company website says.
However, has anyone else noticed that Splenda sweetened beverages have a slight “chlorine” taste about them? So I wonder just how strong that covalent bond between the chlorine/and Hydrogen bond is after all.
It may simply be partially binding to your receptors. It doesn’t nessecarily mean the cholorine atom came off.
Nothing should be chemically impossible to break apart.
on another note
I was under the impression that splenda was NOT absorbed into the body as it is a disaccharide and I do not believe disaccharides can be asborbed without being cleaved into monosaccharides. Rather splenda is excreted in stool.
If I am wrong however, wouldn’t sucralose then have a serious osmolarity effect on the blood stream? (can’t be absorbed into the cells, and if it is, it can’t be digested…)
Again, from the Splenda website…
And I’ve been using Splenda for several years, and it’s manufactured in my State. I have never noticed a “chlorine” aftertaste, nor have I smelled chlorine during the manufacture.
If you’re looking for a non-sugar sweetener with 0 calories, 0 support for the tooth decay process, no aftertaste, and no problems with long-term carcinogenic or other side effects, I have good news for you. Such a thing does exist.
It’s called stevia. Distilled from the leaves of a plant. I understand that it fulfills about 30% of the Japanese sweetener market and that the Japanese even have–brace yourself–sweet toothpaste; sweetened with stevia.
It’s available as a dietary supplement from health food stores here in the U.S. but can not legally be labeled as a sweetener for reasons unknown but that probably have to do with the influence of the sugar industry in Washington.
Here’s a site with basic info. Googling around a bit, you’ll find many links to articles pro and con; most of the pros are from, of course, websites trying to sell it. The only con article I could find is one attempting to damn through innuendo; it’s run by what is obviously a lobbyist organization in D.C.
Personally, I’ve been using stevia for about a month now and I think it’s great. I use it everything where I used to put sugar and…no calories, no aftertaste, no problems. For the record, I’m not affiliated in any way with any producer or retailer of stevia and there is no way in which I can profit from this post.
If you want to try it, I recommend BetterHerbs.com; get the Stevia Spoonable product.
If anyone has further info on stevia in general, I’d be pleased to hear it.
One of the claims made for tagatose is that it is not worked on by oral bacteria, which is why they are heavily promoting it for use in toothpastes:
http://www.tagatose.com/naturlose-benefits.htm
Tagatose is a sugar (that article’s first statement is misleading. Naturlose isn’t “sugar free” it is “sucrose free”). Apparently the oral bacteria are fairly choosy about which sugars they work on. This would lead me to suspect that non-sugar artificial sweeteners are ignored by them. The real question might be if the maltodextrose filler used in most artificial sweeteners does anything.
Our previous discussion on tag:
On a related topic has anyone found a Splenda sweetened root beer other than a few $1.50 a bottle boutique brands? Economy soda Diet Rite is all sweetened with Splenda as is Costco’s diet simply soda but no root beer yet.
Curiously I just read an article that both Pepsi and Coke are coming out with “low carb” colas using half as much HFCS with splenda to make up the balance so the sodas will have half the calories and 20 grams carbs vs 40. Only a marketing flack could come up with this. Why not just replace Nutrasweet with Splenda in the diet line as Diet Rite and Costco did?
I predict these new sodas will meet the same fate as New Coke, Pepsi AM and transparent Pepsi.
Sure, but not everything is worth breaking apart as a metabolic energy source; that’s what I was driving at - is sucralose chemically useless as a nutrient (perhaps because breaking it apart requires a net input of energy?)
Actually, I tried several boxes of Stevia a couple of years ago. Honestly, I thought it made Sodium Saccharin taste like pure cane sugar. The stuff had a aftertaste that was really not pleasant. Also, many of the “health food store” types swear up and down about the stuff being safer than articifical sweetners. However, I ask how can we know this to be the case. Unlike, Splenda and other artificial sweetners it has not been subjected to clinical studies. Just because it is natural doesn’t mean that it is automantically any safer than an artificial sweetner. True, it may have been used for hundreds of years in South America, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it is safe (of course it very well may be safe, I’m just pointing out that we don’t have large scale studies).