
Chemists Were Wrong About Splenda - nkurz
http://acsh.org/news/2016/06/16/chemists-were-wrong-about-splenda/
======
fpgaminer
Potentially interesting article that gives up half-way through at the most
interesting part to digress into an anti-anti-synthetic chemical rant. Not
that I'm against that, but I was really intrigued to learn why a chemical that
has the properties of being reactive isn't reactive. The article just says
that your body doesn't break it down. What does digestion have to do with it?
If a molecule is reactive, then its reactive and should potentially react
within the digestive system. So why doesn't it? That's the interesting bit
that I was hoping to have answered and what the article seemed to be leading
to until it stopped.

In other words, imagine an article about cyanide that spent half of its time
explaining all the parts of cyanide that could potentially react with organic
chemistry, and then abruptly ended with "and your body absorbs it through the
digestive system, so that's why it's bad." Unsatisfying, right?

Also, why does the molecule look like insecticide or flame retardant? That
isn't explained either. Does the fact that it has hotspots make it look like
that? Or is there something more about its structure.

~~~
kragen
I'm not sure. I'm not a chemist, so I went and looked up a table of bond
energies to see whether chlorohydrocarbons should actually be more reactive
than the corresponding hydrocarbons, and it seems like the answer is actually
yes, because the bond-dissociation energy isn't determined purely in
isolation; the rest of the molecule affects it. A Cl-CH₃ bond has an energy of
339 kJ/mol, while the H-CH₃ bond has an energy of 431 kJ/mol, and the
outrageously stable F-CH₃ is 452 kJ/mol. In isolation, the C-Cl bond has an
energy of some 397 kJ/mol, while C-H is only 337 kJ/mol.

I think typically the issue with reactive molecules is not that they react
within the digestive system — if they're reactive enough to do that, then they
may burn your mouth or even stomach, but they're unlikely to make it to your
intestines without reacting with the rest of your food. The issue is typically
that, if they get absorbed into your bloodstream, they can find their way to
all parts of your body, and then wreak havoc on the one or a few particular
molecules they react with. So apparently sucralose doesn't get absorbed into
your bloodstream, and it's not _so_ reactive that you get chemical burns, so
it's harmless. And it doesn't get absorbed because it doesn't react with
sucrase (or invertase), maybe because the big chlorine atoms bumping around
there result in steric hindrance that keeps it from binding to the enzyme
properly.

As for insecticides and flame retardants, there is a large family of
organochloride insecticides (including DDT), and organohalogens are common
flame retardants, including the famous PCBs, but also things like HBCD. Both
DDT and PCBs are notable not for being _reactive_ but for being _unreactive_.

------
harpastum
The site looks like it went down. Cache/mirror of the text:
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:hmNYN92...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:hmNYN92_UesJ:acsh.org/news/2016/06/16/chemists-
were-wrong-about-splenda/&num=1&hl=en&gl=us&strip=1&vwsrc=0)

------
lbenes
I know HN hate anecdotal stories, but here goes anyways. 6 months ago, despite
my regular exercise routine, I was about 20 pounds over my college weight and
prediabetic. Instead of following my doctor’s recommendations and going on
Metformin, I cut all nearly sugars out of my diet and replaced it with
sucralose, fat, and fiber. Now, exactly 5 lbs sugar equivalent of sucralose
later, and I’m back to my college weight.

While I hate the idea of artificial sweeteners, I hated the idea of a lifetime
of medications and being overweight. Everyone's body is different, but for me
they played a huge role in getting my health back.

~~~
fpgaminer
> While I hate the idea of artificial sweeteners

Don't take this as a personal attack on your opinion, but I just don't
understand this. The distinction that we make between artificial chemicals and
natural chemicals seems to be whether it was invented by humans or invented by
evolution. That's a fine distinction to make, but why are human invented
chemicals seen as the _worse_ of the two? When evolution invents a chemical
it's completely random and untested. When humans invent a chemical they vet it
through rigorous study and testing. Given a random chemical from nature and a
random chemical from human labs, I'll take my chances on humans.

Real-life examples of evolution engineering... heart conditions, dementia,
HIV, anemia, etc. Anemia is a good example, because it makes humans immune to
malaria. Just a few side effects though...

I feel like our track record is stellar compared to all the follies of
evolution. So why are our chemicals viewed in such a negative light compared
to these Loki designed chemicals? It's absurd.

Speaking specifically about sugar versus artificial sweeteners, all our
studies to date have indicated that sugar is decidedly toxic at average
consumption levels, whereas sucralose/aspartame is non-toxic. Again, it seems
like nature designed a worse chemical than us.

~~~
christophilus
I'm on the fence on this one. Here's the logic of the anti-artificial crowd,
as best I can put it...

Humans have evolved alongside natural systems. And if humans have been eating
something for a very long time, it's probably alright to eat. If a new sugar-
like substance came into existence, it would probably come into existence as
incremental changes to an existing system. Let's say that existing system was
a staple food source for humans. Humans would gradually change as their food
source changed, and adapt to it... Or, that food source would gradually become
toxic to humans, and we would stop eating it.

Now, take human-invented stuff. You have a sudden new thing which hasn't had
generations of humans munching on it. Some lab tests show that it's great. But
who really knows? Biology is super complex. And lab tests often have
questionable funding and incentives.

Consider the day that wonder-bread was introduced to the world. Old-school
fermented sourdough bread had been eaten for a very long time by healthy
humans. Wonder-bread had various chemicals tested in isolation which had
proved to be positive for health (iron, calcium, etc). But now that enough
time has passed, I don't think anyone looking back would suggest that wonder-
bread is preferable to traditional sourdough fermentation.

Asbestos is another good example. We thought the stuff was just the best thing
ever. Turns out, in the very long run, it's pretty bad news.

So, there's a certain logic to trusting evolved-systems over human-designed
systems.

~~~
maxerickson
Soft white sandwich bread was an aspirational food. People didn't start eating
it because they were excited about the health benefits of fortified flour,
they started eating it because they had been taught to believe that white
flour was a sign of wealth. The government decided to fortify flour because
deficiency diseases are pretty stupid to put up with when you know how to
prevent them. This happened quite some time after modern milling brought
nutrition-less white flour to the masses.

And to be clear, at one point, refined flour was a sign of wealth and status:
[http://contemporaryfoodlab.com/hungry-world/2015/09/white-
is...](http://contemporaryfoodlab.com/hungry-world/2015/09/white-is-the-
warmest-color-a-history-of-refined-flour/) .

------
bduerst
I remember learning about sucralose along with the rest of saccharides, in
college biochem back in the 00's.

Even then it was taught that sucralose is a relatively inert compound that
doesn't get taken up through the intestine, and doesn't pose a threat - though
the prof did cite some study that sucralose accumulated in rat's liver if they
ate huge quantities of it. I don't think chemists have been thinking sucralose
is toxic for a while now.

I also remember that if anyone could figure out how to cheaply synthesize
L-glucose, they will be _billionaires_.

~~~
AnkhMorporkian
> I don't think chemists have been thinking sucralose is toxic for a while
> now.

Sucralose is, without any doubt, the most extensively studied artificial food
additive of all time. I'm reticent about consuming food with artificial
additives and preservatives, but I have absolutely no qualms whatsoever about
ingesting sucralose. I have a huge bottle of liquid sucralose in my otherwise
largely organic kitchen.

------
technojunkie
It's good to see that Splenda isn't the potential toxic substance we began to
wonder it was, but I agree that it tastes icky.

That said, I wonder why Stevia isn't considered to sweeten drinks? It's very
sweet, it's natural like sugar (meaning it's not synthetic or lab-grown), it
also has zero calories, and it doesn't taste icky!

~~~
Amezarak
> it's natural like sugar,

Why is that relevant? That's orthogonal to whether it is healthy or unhealthy.
There's no reason, based on that information, that I should expect it to be
any more or less toxic than Splenda. I mean, the wrong 100% natural mushroom
will kill you pretty dead.

~~~
James001
Well that's not true. Saying it's natural suggests that we have atleast
evolved with it in the environment, likely interacted with it at times and
have developed biological means of interacting and dealing with it. If
something is not natural (i.e. doesn't normally exist in nature), then we
would not have developed a biological response to it yet, which means it
frankly more dangerous because the body does not know how to deal with it.

~~~
ergothus
I get your point, but as the above poster said, often the body's way of
dealing with things is to suffer and/or die. So...how is having an existing
way to "deal with it" terribly helpful?

(Not trolling, seeking honest clarification)

~~~
christophilus
Yeah. I think the "natural" people aren't saying all natural things are better
than all man-made things. e.g. Poison ivy tea isn't better for you than Pepsi.

But, looking at what generations of long-lived people tend to eat[1] _is_
probably a reasonable guide to nutrition and health. Manufactured/artificial
stuff simply isn't on that list since that stuff hasn't been around long
enough to be part of a multi-generational study.

[1]
[https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_buettner_how_to_live_to_be_100...](https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_buettner_how_to_live_to_be_100?language=en)

------
koolba
Nice article and I like the matter-of-fact writing style.

Makes me want to study more chemistry. Any suggestions from this audience of
how to get into it? Pick up a Chemistry 101 text book?

~~~
xenophonf
Zumdahl's _Chemistry_ and the _CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics_ were the
mainstays of my high school and college chemistry education.

~~~
niels_olson
don't read the CRC Handbook, it's like the encyclopedia though: fun to flip
through and you might actually refer to it occasionally.

------
niels_olson
Note, the publisher of this article, the ACSH, is considered "industry-
friendly" and their medical director had his license revoked for fraud.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Council_on_Science_an...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Council_on_Science_and_Health)

------
whack
For anyone considering taking Splenda as a form of weight control: It's true
that Splenda has 0 calories, but it also causes your body to develop greater
cravings for sweet (sugary) food/drinks. In the long term, this can cause you
to eat/drink in a more unhealthy manner, undoing all the caloric benefits you
thought you were getting from Splenda.

[https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-
drinks/...](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-
drinks/artificial-sweeteners/)

------
danarlow
ahem... just because sucralose is not super reactive does not mean that it is
not harmful. some evidence suggests it can screw up your gut microbiome:
[http://www.nature.com/news/sugar-substitutes-linked-to-
obesi...](http://www.nature.com/news/sugar-substitutes-linked-to-
obesity-1.15938)

------
draw_down
Too bad it tastes weird.

~~~
personjerry
Have you tried aspartame? I've found that Coke Zero tastes much closer to real
sugar than Diet Coke.

~~~
xirdstl
Diet Coke uses aspartame also.

I figured the difference between Coke Zero and Diet Coke was branding for
people who don't want to drink something labeled as diet.

EDIT: I drink both regularly (including today), and I personally do not
perceive difference in taste. YMMV.

~~~
pygy_
Coke Light => Women

Coke Zero => Men

~~~
matthewowen
Not sure about the downvotes on this one. My recollection is that Coke Zero
was introduced to compete with Pepsi Max, and that the primary reason was that
men were reluctant to buy things marked as "Diet" (plus there was a long
history of Diet Coke being marketed almost exclusively to women [eg
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Sre-
wpGHE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Sre-wpGHE) ]).

Not saying any of this is a good thing... but it's a thing.

~~~
pygy_
Thanks, that's the comment I wanted to write but I'm out of neurons right
now...

------
tacos
Fantastic writing style. Modern, clever, pre-emptive. Hopefully even accurate.
Loved this:

"Since the stuff is synthetic, it’s guaranteed that Joe Mercola and the rest
of the anti-chemical Internet dopes are going to try to scare you, and they’ll
probably succeed. I didn’t even bother to look."

------
LyndsySimon
I don't consume sucralose if I can avoid - not because I believe it's toxic,
but because I've observed that my short-term memory is significantly
deteriorated after consuming it.

It might be the placebo effect, but I'm fairly confident it's not. Placebo
effect or not, it has a discernible impact on my cognitive ability, so I avoid
it.

~~~
convivialdingo
I get short-term headaches from aspartame myself.

I don't know exactly why - but I've read that drinking artificial sweeteners
may trick the body into anticipating an energetic food causing it to release
insulin. The resulting mild hypoglycemia causes headaches.

