I’m here looking at a packet of Splenda. It lists the three ingredients on the back, and the first one is dextrose. That ought to mean that most of the contents of the package are dextrose. And dextrose is a sugar, right?
So how can the stuff be no-calorie, when the filler material they use is a pure sugar? And what about maltodextrin, the second ingredient? What kind of nutritional value does that have?
And this is the packet form, which is more is more concentrated (sucralose-wise) than the baking form. That is, it does not measure one-for-one. This is opposed to the “for baking” form, which has even more filler, and ought to mean more dextrose in the diet.
There’s only about a gram of stuff in a Splenda packet; and a small fraction of that is the sucralose (which his hundreds of times as sweet as sugar). Maltodextrin is a starch polymer of glucose, and dextrin is, of course, D-glucose. Both can be converted into energy, and hence have calories. Since there’s so little material per packet, I think they can get away with saying it’s “no calorie”, even though that’s not technically true. In a gram of sugar/starch, though, there can’t be more than 5 kcal or so.
The dextrose would taste sweet, if the flavor weren’t completely overpowered by the sucralose. Maltodextrin is going to be pretty flavorless, like most starches, though it would probably become sweet in your mouth with chewing as it’s hydrolized.
Okay, but what about the stuff for baking. It’s probably 90-something percent filler, and the filler is not of negligible calories.
Besides, even 5 Calories in a packet of sweetener would have to be accounted for and disclosed, I’m sure. A gram of sucrose only has 3.5 Calories. (Cite ) And a (presumably) one teaspoon packet of sugar is still in the 15 Calorie range.
I assume that while dextrose is the major ingredient by weight, the volume is probably mostly accounted for by fluffy maltodextrin. But still, how are they keeping the contects of the packet enough under 1 Calorie to be able to say “none” if half or more of the weight is glucose?
That I don’t know. It probably has more to do with the laws governing how one discloses caloric content than the precise physical qualities of the food. Now that I think about it, I don’t recall ever seeing a food package where the number of calories listed was under 5 per serving.
While it may not be the most authoritative cite, it was the easiest to Google! Hormel’s Food Label Guidelines claim that a food must have less than 5 calories per serving to be labeled “calorie free.”
I’ll second this. A certain national ice-cream stand makes a Splenda-based, very-low-calorie ice cream that’s absolutely fantastic. I love the stuff; tastes just like regular ice cream, and low enough calories I can actually eat dessert once in a while as long as I’m careful of the “mix-ins.” But it’s a little “chalky” in texture- hard to form (not unpleasantly so).
Then one day, I get terrible bloating, cramps, and associated gastrointestinal distress, even the “chlorine” smell. It was incapacitating, so much so that I stayed home from work. Took me twice before I figured it out. Sure enough, they’d reformulated the stuff to make it smoother and easier to handle…by adding a couple of sugar alcohols. Now I can’t eat it.
Try one more experiment, if you can. Have someone dissolve a teaspoon or so of sugar in a glass of water, and do the same with Splenda. Repeat the double-blind part. See if you still get the effect (I don’t; I can and do eat sucralose [Splenda] just fine, just not the sugar alchohols.)
OK, just for the sake of science and the Dope, I’ll do this when I go to my dad’s for Christmas. (I don’t have any sucralose here, nor am I going to buy any.)
I used to be able to eat Atkin’s bars though, which have always been made with sugar alcohols - until they added the sucralose about a year ago. Now I can’t.