Sucralose is Poison

Diet and Nutrition
1

I’m going to ruffle a few feathers with this one.

Anyone here familiar with either chemotherapy, drug design or chemistry will have some idea of what an alkylating agent is. The most ractive alkylating agents, are generally primary alkyl halides.

In industrial applications, if these types of compound are present as impurities it is considered unacceptable because they are widely known as the most potent carcinogens on the planet, since they irreversibly bind to DNA. A particularly nasty one of these agents is known as carmustine. It contains two primary alkyl chloride chains and can bind between the double helix in DNA, which, to use the correct technical terminology, FUCKS IT UP PROPER.

The sucralose molecule contains two similar primary alkyl chloride side chains of the correct molecular width to do the same. This would suggest that although short term studies in animals have been accepted, it is widely known that these are not always 100% indicative of an agents potential carcinogenicity. The molecular structure of sucralose by analogy indicates that it should be a potent carcinogen.

Any thoughts?

2

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
I’m going to ruffle a few feathers with this one.

Anyone here familiar with either chemotherapy, drug design or chemistry will have some idea of what an alkylating agent is. The most ractive alkylating agents, are generally primary alkyl halides.

In industrial applications, if these types of compound are present as impurities it is considered unacceptable because they are widely known as the most potent carcinogens on the planet, since they irreversibly bind to DNA. A particularly nasty one of these agents is known as carmustine. It contains two primary alkyl chloride chains and can bind between the double helix in DNA, which, to use the correct technical terminology, FUCKS IT UP PROPER.

The sucralose molecule contains two similar primary alkyl chloride side chains of the correct molecular width to do the same. This would suggest that although short term studies in animals have been accepted, it is widely known that these are not always 100% indicative of an agents potential carcinogenicity. The molecular structure of sucralose by analogy indicates that it should be a potent carcinogen.

Any thoughts?[/quote]

Thought: They test things to make sure they aren’t alkylating agents. It’s not like they are going to overlook that. You can test whether a compound will alkylate DNA extremely easily and objectively, you don’t need to do tests in humans. Sucralose does not alkylate your DNA.

If you are saying they are similar in structure and effect DNA similarly the symptoms of ingesting them should be similar. Pretty sure your hair doesnt fall out and you vomit your guts out when you ingest splenda.

3

Where’s the bodycount?

4

[quote]MODOK wrote:
The sucralose molecule is far too polar to enter the cell. It has no access to DNA.

[/quote]

/end thread.

5

. . .Well that was easy.

6

Splanda is crap. The human body has been handling simple sugars since day one. Why fuck around with artificial garbage.

7

[quote]Unaware wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
I’m going to ruffle a few feathers with this one.

Anyone here familiar with either chemotherapy, drug design or chemistry will have some idea of
what an alkylating agent is. The most ractive alkylating agents, are generally primary alkyl halides.

In industrial applications, if these types of compound are present as impurities it is considered unacceptable because they are widely known as the most potent carcinogens on the planet, since they irreversibly bind to DNA. A particularly nasty one of these agents is known as carmustine. It contains two primary alkyl chloride chains and can bind between the double helix in DNA, which, to use the correct technical terminology, FUCKS IT UP PROPER.

The sucralose molecule contains two similar primary alkyl chloride side chains of the correct molecular width to do the same. This would suggest that although short term studies in animals have been accepted, it is widely known that these are not always 100% indicative of an agents potential carcinogenicity. The molecular structure of sucralose by analogy indicates that it should be a potent carcinogen.

Any thoughts?[/quote]

Thought: They test things to make sure they aren’t alkylating agents. It’s not like they are going to overlook that. You can test whether a compound will alkylate DNA extremely easily and objectively, you don’t need to do tests in humans. Sucralose does not alkylate your DNA.

If you are saying they are similar in structure and effect DNA similarly the symptoms of ingesting them should be similar. Pretty sure your hair doesnt fall out and you vomit your guts out when you ingest splenda.
[/quote]

You can test that sucralose is an alkylating agent. The primary alkyl halides will readily react with nitrogen compounds. Whether something is an alkylating agent is a due to the functional groups present on the molecule. And nothing else.

8

[quote]IronAbrams wrote:
Where’s the bodycount?[/quote]

Cancer from carcinogenic agent exposure can take 40-50 years to develop. Only in cases where exposure is extreme, is it likely to be any faster.

9

[quote]MODOK wrote:
The sucralose molecule is far too polar to enter the cell. It has no access to DNA.

[/quote]

Polarity of a molecule has nothing to do with whether it can enter a cell or not. Another polar sugar based alkylating agent (different mechanism) is Streptozotocin.

10

I hope sucralose isn’t bad.

11

[quote]SkyNett wrote:

[quote]MODOK wrote:
The sucralose molecule is far too polar to enter the cell. It has no access to DNA.

[/quote]

/end thread.[/quote]

Read a biochemistry book. Just because cells have a non polar membrane, does not mean polar molecules are excluded. Cells have speciifc mechanisms for bringing them into the cell.

12

[quote]Unaware wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
I’m going to ruffle a few feathers with this one.

Anyone here familiar with either chemotherapy, drug design or chemistry will have some idea of what an alkylating agent is. The most ractive alkylating agents, are generally primary alkyl halides.

In industrial applications, if these types of compound are present as impurities it is considered unacceptable because they are widely known as the most potent carcinogens on the planet, since they irreversibly bind to DNA. A particularly nasty one of these agents is known as carmustine. It contains two primary alkyl chloride chains and can bind between the double helix in DNA, which, to use the correct technical terminology, FUCKS IT UP PROPER.

The sucralose molecule contains two similar primary alkyl chloride side chains of the correct molecular width to do the same. This would suggest that although short term studies in animals have been accepted, it is widely known that these are not always 100% indicative of an agents potential carcinogenicity. The molecular structure of sucralose by analogy indicates that it should be a potent carcinogen.

Any thoughts?[/quote]

Thought: They test things to make sure they aren’t alkylating agents. It’s not like they are going to overlook that. You can test whether a compound will alkylate DNA extremely easily and objectively, you don’t need to do tests in humans. Sucralose does not alkylate your DNA.

If you are saying they are similar in structure and effect DNA similarly the symptoms of ingesting them should be similar. Pretty sure your hair doesnt fall out and you vomit your guts out when you ingest splenda.
[/quote]

There are a variety of alkylating agents. They do not all manifest with the same physical symptoms, and the exhibition of these is largely dose dependant. The one they thing they do have in common is the ability to cause cancer and this is not a readily apparant symptom.

13

I’ve always had a nasty feeling about sucralose and it’s in just about everything. I’ll be interested to see how this thread turns out. Still, at least it’s not as bad as aspartame… hopefully.

14

MassiveGuns: I like the thread, I like the debate, questions and your answers but you are responding to everyones posts with definitive answers like you already know and or have drawn a conclusion. If thats the case than state it so it can be debated. You asked if people had thoughts but when they do you respond with a “clearly you dont know what youre talking about kind of answer.”

On the subject though, and Id like your thoughts, I feel suralose most in my teeth. My teeth get really sensitive when I drink a lot of BCAAs. My problem with this whole debate though, evidence or no evidence aside, a lot of people who are lean and mean, like most of the trainers on here rock “fake sugar” like products. My issue is I cant understand how, unless outside chemicals are involved, these people get away it. I was told by my nutrition coach that fake sugars “cock block” fat loss. I bolus dose BCAAs and they have suralose, so this concerns me. Thanks for starting this thread. Hopefully it reaches a more clear conclusion.

15

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]SkyNett wrote:

[quote]MODOK wrote:
The sucralose molecule is far too polar to enter the cell. It has no access to DNA.

[/quote]

/end thread.[/quote]

Read a biochemistry book. Just because cells have a non polar membrane, does not mean polar molecules are excluded. Cells have speciifc mechanisms for bringing them into the cell. [/quote]

I suggest you read more than one. He didn’t say it won’t enter BECAUSE it’s polar, that’s a blanket statement that would be incorrect. Modok stated it won’t enter because it’s too polar. He qualified his statement, there’s a difference.

16

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
Splanda is crap. The human body has been handling simple sugars since day one. Why fuck around with artificial garbage.[/quote]

Yes, but not in the quantities people are consuming it, not to mention tooth decay.

Dr. Colgan I believe has suggested not to use Splenda (I haven’t read up on it yet), but let’s face it sugar is not innocent either.

17

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]SkyNett wrote:

[quote]MODOK wrote:
The sucralose molecule is far too polar to enter the cell. It has no access to DNA.

[/quote]

/end thread.[/quote]

Read a biochemistry book. Just because cells have a non polar membrane, does not mean polar molecules are excluded. Cells have speciifc mechanisms for bringing them into the cell. [/quote]

Yea - I have - several of them. In fact, I have Biochemistry by Campbell and Farrell right in front of me.

Polarity certainly has ramifications on what passes through the phospholipid bilayer of the cell. I didn’t say it was the only variable in play regarding that mechanism, but Modok certainly had a valid point.

Way to be a smartass prick about it though. I’ve been through a full complement of Chem courses including a year of molecular chem, a year of Orgo and half a year of bio…so keep the bullshit put downs to yourself.

18

[quote]hipsr4runnin wrote:
MassiveGuns: I like the thread, I like the debate, questions and your answers but you are responding to everyones posts with definitive answers like you already know and or have drawn a conclusion. If thats the case than state it so it can be debated. You asked if people had thoughts but when they do you respond with a “clearly you dont know what youre talking about kind of answer.”

On the subject though, and Id like your thoughts, I feel suralose most in my teeth. My teeth get really sensitive when I drink a lot of BCAAs. My problem with this whole debate though, evidence or no evidence aside, a lot of people who are lean and mean, like most of the trainers on here rock “fake sugar” like products. My issue is I cant understand how, unless outside chemicals are involved, these people get away it. I was told by my nutrition coach that fake sugars “cock block” fat loss. I bolus dose BCAAs and they have suralose, so this concerns me. Thanks for starting this thread. Hopefully it reaches a more clear conclusion. [/quote]

I personally will never touch the stuff again.

19

[quote]MODOK wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]SkyNett wrote:

[quote]MODOK wrote:
The sucralose molecule is far too polar to enter the cell. It has no access to DNA.

[/quote]

/end thread.[/quote]

Read a biochemistry book. Just because cells have a non polar membrane, does not mean polar molecules are excluded. Cells have speciifc mechanisms for bringing them into the cell. [/quote]

Damn, you are a dumb ass.

GLUT4 is insulin-dependent glucose transporter. There is no insulin spike from sucralose, therefore trans-membrane transport is very low. But if you want specifics:

“The Journal of Mutation Research found that large doses of sucralose (equivalent to 11,450 packets of splenda a day) led to DNA damage in mice.”

So you win. Rodents who eat their bodyweight in sucralose each day need to be terrified.

Sasaki, YF; Kawaguchi, S; Kamaya, A; Ohshita, M; Kabasawa, K; Iwama, K; Taniguchi, K; Tsuda, S (2002-08-26). “The comet assay with 8 mouse organs: results with 39 currently used food additives”. Mutation research 519 (1-2): 103â??119. PMID 12160896.
[/quote]

Correction, rodents who eat up to 2 grams of sucralose in ONE SINGLE DAY suffer DNA damage. Since sucralose does enter cells, since it is metabolised which is also confirmed by studies, if DNA damage due to alkylation occurs from one massive dose, then DNA damage through cumulative dosing over a long period of time is VERY likely. And the particular type of damage it will cause is the worst kind, since it is a most likely intercalating.

And of course something can be too polar to enter a cell, but to suggest a modified carbohydrate is too polar to enter is from my point of view retarded and so deserved a little put down. No hard feelings. If I say something retarded, feel free to put me in my place :slight_smile:

20

I have it on good authority that MODOK didn’t open a single biochemistry book on his way to obtaining a doctorate in pharmacology.

MG - what have you accomplished seeing that you HAVE, presumably, read several books on the subject?