What about the fact that artificial sweeteners are extremely acidic? Is it not a big deal as long as you balance them out with a good amount of alkaline foods?
[quote]MODOK wrote:
[quote]nikoV wrote:
What about the fact that artificial sweeteners are extremely acidic? Is it not a big deal as long as you balance them out with a good amount of alkaline foods?[/quote]
The best thing for that is to chase it with some sodium hypochlorite. Just chug the shit anytime you eat anything acidic. It will completely neutralize the acids.[/quote]
I’m a chemist, not a nutritonalist, but I have never heard of someone advocating chugging sodium hypochlorite to neutralize acidic food. This is extremely dangerous, and I’m sure you already know that. Did you mean sodium bicarbonate?
[quote]Cartman8675 wrote:
[quote]MODOK wrote:
[quote]nikoV wrote:
What about the fact that artificial sweeteners are extremely acidic? Is it not a big deal as long as you balance them out with a good amount of alkaline foods?[/quote]
The best thing for that is to chase it with some sodium hypochlorite. Just chug the shit anytime you eat anything acidic. It will completely neutralize the acids.[/quote]
I’m a chemist, not a nutritonalist, but I have never heard of someone advocating chugging sodium hypochlorite to neutralize acidic food. This is extremely dangerous, and I’m sure you already know that. Did you mean sodium bicarbonate? [/quote]
I believe the big man may have been joking, given that the compound in question is Bleach. Just a hunch.
if it was a stupid question, then forget about it. It was just an idle thought.
[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
Brusick, D. (2010). The absence of genotoxicity of sucralose. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 48(11), 3067-3072.
Major sponser for the study:
McNeil Nutritionals: AKA Johnson and Johnson, who sell a shitload of splenda (dont they hold the patent??)
I guess bias and commercial agendas are absent in the corporate world.
[/quote]
The current system we have in the USA is that the company that wishes to bring a product to market has the burden of proving both its safety and its efficacy (in the case of drugs), which is why you often see the company that makes a product funding the studies to support it. The other alternative is to have you, the taxpayer, fund the studies (via the government)… Which I don’t see going over very well.
Unless an interested third party pays with their own money to do the research you very rarely find studies done on these things that are not done by the companies that own the products. “Interested third parties” often times bring with them their own biases, so this is not exactly without its own problems.
The important thing is that if the science is done correctly (and that’s a Big If sometimes), it does not matter who funded the study. The results however might be up for various interpretations, which is often where marketers come in and play it fast and loose - ie: guy A loses 1 pound in a year on placebo, guy B loses 2 pounds in a year on Product X ~> Product X burns fat 200% faster than with placebo! Which is technically correct, but not worth a damn in the big picture.[/quote]
Unlike the pharmaceutical industry, artificial sweeteners are not as stringently tested as drugs are before being brought to market.
[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
I was under the impression that the difference between something being a poison or not was largely the dose. For a single example - The medication Coumadin is therapeutic for lowering the incidence of blood clots and is safe when it keeps your INR at 2.2-3.2, but if you take enough of it and jack your INR up to 15, it’ll be your last nose bleed.
This idea applies to essentially every substance known to man including water, which can dilute your blood and kill you if you drink too much.
Given that, I do not think it is acceptable to make the jump and say that since a single, VERY large bolus dose lead to adverse events, that it is safe to extrapolate that and say that a longer duration of MUCH smaller doses would have the same effect. Proving the former does nothing in the way of proving, or even adding weight, to the latter.[/quote]
That is largely the case, except in the case of potent carcinogens. Cumulative dosing is just as harmful as one single large dose.
[quote]MODOK wrote:
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
[quote]relentless2120 wrote:
I hate to just throw out random articles into a conversation but this one could not be any more relevant
Brusick, D. (2010). The absence of genotoxicity of sucralose. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 48(11), 3067-3072.
And can we leave out the random useless posts about having read textbooks? Too few interesting scientific discussions take place on this website as it is[/quote]
As far as studies go for this discussion, I think its best to use some of the relevant facts, At no point in the chain of splenda’s develeopment has anybody really said “hey is this really safe or not?” that doesnt have some huge financial interest in getting on and keeping it on the market.
[/quote]
“In determining the safety of sucralose, FDA reviewed data from more than 110 studies in humans and animals. Many of the studies were designed to identify possible toxic effects including carcinogenic, reproductive and neurological effects. No such effects were found, and FDA’s approval is based on the finding that sucralose is safe for human consumption.”
FDA Talk Paper T98-16.
“There is adequate evidence, [for sucralose], that there are no concerns about mutagenicity, carcinogenicity, development or reproductive toxicity.”
Opinion of the Scientific Committee on Food of the European Commission on Sucralose, September 7, 2000
“The low-calorie sweeteners in the United States all underwent extensive testing before they were approved. Results showed that low-calorie sweeteners are safe for everyone, including children and pregnant women. Sucralose is the newest low-calorie sweetener on the market. Sucralose is not affected by heat and retains its sweetness in hot beverages, baked goods, and processed foods.”
American Diabetes Association
“Sucralose (SplendaÃ?®) was approved by the FDA as a tabletop sweetener in 1998, followed by approval as a general purpose sweetener in 1999. Before approving sucralose, the FDA viewed more than 100 safety studies that were conducted, including studies to assess cancer risk. The results of these studies showed no evidence that these sweeteners cause cancer or pose any other threat to human health.”
National Cancer Institute
I guess the FDA qualifies as the “anyone” in your question.
I don’t know what more you want. There is nothing to debate. Sucralose cannot reach intracellular concentrations high enough to cause “DNA damage”. It is what it is.[/quote]
There are no long term studies (2+ years) done on humans to establish if there is evidence of DNA damage from repeated exposure. And if the FDA is the mother of all that is right in the world, then why did they approve ambien, which in the ORIGINAL data approved by the FDA show evidence of carcogenicity in humans with only two weeks of exposure, and the statins, which are also for the most part carcinogenic, but yet are approved and reccomended for very long term use in humans?
The FDA is not the most reliable authority when it comes to public safety. Anyone here know the story of how aspartame eventually got approved?
[quote]Peter Orban wrote:
Metabolized doesn’t mean it was used in a cell for energy or such, it means it was conjugated in the liver as part of the process to remove it from the body via urine, the same happens for many compounds including steroids and antioxidant components of food.
All cells in the body are capable of non-energy metabolism to some degree. Its just liver cells are specialised for the task. If something is metabolised, then thats good evidence its taken into cells and therefore can come in contact with DNA or RNA and affect gene transcription.
If splenda was totally safe, then it would be completely out of line with just about every single other organo-chlorine compound in existence and certainly the first primary alykl halide ever to be non carcinogenic. The fact it is proven to cause DNA damage in large doses is proof that it can and does act biologically in accordance with its functional groups. You can argue for intracellular concentration all you like, but the fact remains that that is a speculation outside of the norm for simple carbohydrate molecules of any sort.
[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
Quite right. And 20+ years of low carb dieting, supplements and other random foods containing it would be enough to add up to a rather significant dose.
And an interesting fact, sucralose was orignally developed as a PESTICIDE, not as an artificial sweetener!
[/quote]
Nothing “Adds up to a significant” dose - It only matters what the maximum dose at one time is. Mercury is toxic at certain levels, but you can consume small amounts of it daily without any adverse reactions. There is no “20 year build up” of sucralose. You’ll need to prove that Sucralose remains in the body and adds up over the years to make that kind of statement.
As far as the pesticide thing goes, it’s just not true: “Sucralose is a synthetic compound that was discovered quite by accident in 1976 by some scientists in Britain who were trying to develop a new pesticide. They accidentally discovered the sweet taste during one of the experiments and decided to pursue this product as an artificial sweetener instead of a pesticide!”
Sucralose was never developed AS A PESTICIDE, it was discovered while someone was attempting to make a pesticide.
And even if it was, so what? If the evidence shows its safe to use in certain doses, what does it matter what is was developed for? Many, many discoveries have happened by accident while researching something else… It doesnt mean their application is any less valid or dangerous.[/quote]
It was developed as pesticide orignally. It was only later on when someone actually tasted it accidentally that its properties as a sweetener were discovered.
Pesticides are “safe” to be exposed to in low doses for moderate periods of time, but do that for 20 years and you will suffer all the side effects of a large acute exposure, and probably worse ones too.
Ok - so, what do you want us to say? That YOU are RIGHT?
I can’t say that - you bring up some valid points, but until you can show me a case study of someone with massive DNA mutations as a result of 20 years of sucralose intake, then we are at an impasse.
You could just say - it MAY be safe in moderate doses, and then again maybe not. It’s all speculation.
So simply put, we can’t say for sure. Not sure where else you want to go with this.
I think we can agree that there isn’t enough sufficient research in humans the conclude that an increased consumption of sucrolose would cause cellular damage. However studies that use rats have concluded that an EXTREMELY large amount of consumption caused cellular damage. Sucrolose is indigestible by the body resulting in no insulin response to be carried to cells in the body, this means you would have to completely saturate yourself with it.
You poop it out. If someone would like to do an experiment for us you could eat your body weight in sugar and sucrolose, than weigh the side effects and choose the best slow painful to die.
Massive Guns,
I see that you like to instigate shit, so let me poke you in the eye with this one…
Since you are a member of this site, and it should be safe to assume that your nutrition and workout program is appropriate for your goals, you should be fine having some sucralose here or there.
I will admit that I do not have Biochem or pharmacological knowledge along the lines of someone like Modok, but I am an Einstein when it comes to common fucking sense.
If you plan on taking that shit intravenously (which is sarcasm for ingesting so much that you might as well bypass the stomach and just shoot it right into your vein), then I see no reason to avoid it like the plague.
This world we live in, can kill you 1000 ways, plenty of which are not solely responsible by you.
Dude, relax, enjoy the sucralose, or not. Just stop preaching “the sky is falling” bullshit that no one here believes.
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
All cells in the body are capable of non-energy metabolism to some degree. Its just liver cells are specialised for the task. If something is metabolised, then thats good evidence its taken into cells and therefore can come in contact with DNA or RNA and affect gene transcription.[/quote]
No you are misunderstanding how the scientists in the study used the word metabolized.
In the study it means that means conjugation. It is evidence of nothing more than that. You are stretching to make a belief based argument unfounded on any referenced facts thusfar.
I am not denying that overloading an animal with sucralose has deleterious effects, but this is beyond that of normal amounts and such disruptions in cellular function will happen anytime you overload something to that degree outside of macronutrients.
As for damage of DNA or RNA or even your understanding of organic chemistry, you are way out of your competency. I actually specialized in translation and transcription along with genetic engineering and have over a decade of work experience in analytical, organic and synthetic chemistry. DNA is inside the nuclear membrane and quite inaccessible and any RNA outside the membrane is usually quite protected from access based on its hairpin loop structure and extremely low concentrations of possible interacting material. There are also powerful scavenging systems within cells that would take care of most of your putative organo-chlorine compounds running amok.
You need to do some further reading, particularly on the nuclear envelope:
and organochloride (see the toxicity part):
While both of these references are definitely beginner material, you should find it a good start since most of the things you won’t understand have helpful links.
There is no reliable evidence that the chlorine in sucralose or other approved organochloride products has any significant DNA/RNA damaging or even interacting abilities. The references you provided did not quantify damage in an unambiguous way, nor do they have establish clear cause and effect relationships. In short they are poor science and the conclusions drawn do not follow the results.
[quote]Peter Orban wrote:
As for damage of DNA or RNA or even your understanding of organic chemistry, you are way out of your competency. I actually specialized in translation and transcription along with genetic engineering and have over a decade of work experience in analytical, organic and synthetic chemistry. [/quote]
Owned.
I like this guy! : )
Ahhh…good ole Van Der Waals forces…brings me back. : )
Not to mention, you’re really pushing it with the “statins are carcinogenic” statement. You must be very concerned about the health of rats.
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
I was under the impression that the difference between something being a poison or not was largely the dose. For a single example - The medication Coumadin is therapeutic for lowering the incidence of blood clots and is safe when it keeps your INR at 2.2-3.2, but if you take enough of it and jack your INR up to 15, it’ll be your last nose bleed.
This idea applies to essentially every substance known to man including water, which can dilute your blood and kill you if you drink too much.
Given that, I do not think it is acceptable to make the jump and say that since a single, VERY large bolus dose lead to adverse events, that it is safe to extrapolate that and say that a longer duration of MUCH smaller doses would have the same effect. Proving the former does nothing in the way of proving, or even adding weight, to the latter.[/quote]
That is largely the case, except in the case of potent carcinogens. Cumulative dosing is just as harmful as one single large dose.[/quote]
Please direct me to your evidence as this runs contrary to the way EVERY other chemical in the world acts.
A person can drink 1 beer a day for 50 days with no adverse effects, but that same person cannot drink 50 beers in one day. The cumulative dose is exactly the same, but the TOXICITY is completely different.
You yourself have stated many times in this thread that there are no long term studies… So where are you drawing your conclusions from? You seem very confident in your conclusions when you yourself have stated that the evidence is not there to support them.
No one on this thread is saying that sucralose, in any dose over any length of time, poses absolutely no danger to the human body - Which is the straw man you set up to attack - We are saying that the evidence (both direct from studies on the chemical itself and indirect from other areas of science like toxicology and chemistry) point to a reasonable conclusion that small doses are safe to take.
If you are truly looking for rational discourse and are not just looking to get into an argument and make sure everyone hears your opinion, let me ask you this question:
What evidence would it take to change your mind?
[quote]Peter Orban wrote:
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
All cells in the body are capable of non-energy metabolism to some degree. Its just liver cells are specialised for the task. If something is metabolised, then thats good evidence its taken into cells and therefore can come in contact with DNA or RNA and affect gene transcription.[/quote]
No you are misunderstanding how the scientists in the study used the word metabolized.
In the study it means that means conjugation. It is evidence of nothing more than that. You are stretching to make a belief based argument unfounded on any referenced facts thusfar.
I am not denying that overloading an animal with sucralose has deleterious effects, but this is beyond that of normal amounts and such disruptions in cellular function will happen anytime you overload something to that degree outside of macronutrients.
As for damage of DNA or RNA or even your understanding of organic chemistry, you are way out of your competency. I actually specialized in translation and transcription along with genetic engineering and have over a decade of work experience in analytical, organic and synthetic chemistry. DNA is inside the nuclear membrane and quite inaccessible and any RNA outside the membrane is usually quite protected from access based on its hairpin loop structure and extremely low concentrations of possible interacting material. There are also powerful scavenging systems within cells that would take care of most of your putative organo-chlorine compounds running amok.
You need to do some further reading, particularly on the nuclear envelope:
and organochloride (see the toxicity part):
While both of these references are definitely beginner material, you should find it a good start since most of the things you won’t understand have helpful links.
There is no reliable evidence that the chlorine in sucralose or other approved organochloride products has any significant DNA/RNA damaging or even interacting abilities. The references you provided did not quantify damage in an unambiguous way, nor do they have establish clear cause and effect relationships. In short they are poor science and the conclusions drawn do not follow the results.[/quote]
Well amazingly, we’re not far off in terms of experience, it just turns out that my perticular field of specialty was organo-halides.
Referenced fact: Sufficient dosing causes DNA damage in rats
Conclusion: Sucralose can A) enter cells and B) damage DNA, mechanism unclear
The above FACT states that despite your understanding of the nuclear membrane, sucralose can indeed cross it, although the circumstances are unclear. I’m actually amazed that you posted the wikipedia reference for organochlorides like it supports your position? All organo chlorides are toxic, and the degree and type of toxicity is dependant on molecular structure.
The whole POINT of this discussion is that since sucrclose is a sweetener, it does not have anywhere near the stringency of regulation for safety studies that drugs have, and everyone knows just how well the regulations in place for new drugs protect people too. There aren’t enough studies in humans and enough knowledge of sucralose metabolism in humans to make the assumption it is safe.
If you are as experienced in chemistry as you say you are, then you’ll know that primary alyl halides are as bad as it gets as far as carcinogens go.
And exactly why cant splenda reach DNA? Where is your evidence for that? Its already been shown that it can. Just because it was one large dose should be cause for concern to anyone. Even at 2g total dose in a rat, thats not exactly going to saturate the tissues so much that it just gets pulled through cell membranes. There is something else going on there. I mentioned Streptozotocin earlier as an example of a simple carbohydrate based alkylating agent that causes DNA damage.
And to reply to the poison question. Think about this. Alcohol is a poison. Small amounts are safe, drink a bottle of vodka in 1 minute, you could easily die, but if you manage to keep breathing, you will survive with likely no permanant effects, and certainly not get cancer.
If you did this with a significant dose of carmustine, you may survive the initial acute exposure, but the DNA damage you would suffer for be permanant and too overwhelming for your natural repair mechanisms to fix. You would eventually get cancer and die.
[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
I was under the impression that the difference between something being a poison or not was largely the dose. For a single example - The medication Coumadin is therapeutic for lowering the incidence of blood clots and is safe when it keeps your INR at 2.2-3.2, but if you take enough of it and jack your INR up to 15, it’ll be your last nose bleed.
This idea applies to essentially every substance known to man including water, which can dilute your blood and kill you if you drink too much.
Given that, I do not think it is acceptable to make the jump and say that since a single, VERY large bolus dose lead to adverse events, that it is safe to extrapolate that and say that a longer duration of MUCH smaller doses would have the same effect. Proving the former does nothing in the way of proving, or even adding weight, to the latter.[/quote]
That is largely the case, except in the case of potent carcinogens. Cumulative dosing is just as harmful as one single large dose.[/quote]
Please direct me to your evidence as this runs contrary to the way EVERY other chemical in the world acts.
A person can drink 1 beer a day for 50 days with no adverse effects, but that same person cannot drink 50 beers in one day. The cumulative dose is exactly the same, but the TOXICITY is completely different.
You yourself have stated many times in this thread that there are no long term studies… So where are you drawing your conclusions from? You seem very confident in your conclusions when you yourself have stated that the evidence is not there to support them.
No one on this thread is saying that sucralose, in any dose over any length of time, poses absolutely no danger to the human body - Which is the straw man you set up to attack - We are saying that the evidence (both direct from studies on the chemical itself and indirect from other areas of science like toxicology and chemistry) point to a reasonable conclusion that small doses are safe to take.
If you are truly looking for rational discourse and are not just looking to get into an argument and make sure everyone hears your opinion, let me ask you this question:
What evidence would it take to change your mind? [/quote]
A long term (5+ years), varied dosage study on DNA damage and other effects, along with extensive in vivo metabolism studies elucidating under exactly what conditions does sucralose affect human DNA. If dosage can be a a factor, then other variables will be too.