Sucralose is Poison

Diet and Nutrition
21

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
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. …[/quote]

So, 2 grams of sucralose in a day suffer DNA damage - I haven’t bothered reading the study, so I’ll take you at your word. Essentially what you’re saying is that if [in rodent levels] there’s an enormous bolus of sucralose in the blood, some will enter cells and cause DNA damage. Well, fair enough. If you put enough of most things in the blood, some of it will end up crossing the cell membrane via simple osmosis.

But as there hasn’t been a proposed mechanism / sucralose specific transporter / etc, I don’t see how you can then make the suggestion that long term low dose usage is very likely to cause accumulated DNA damage. If the driving force extracellularly isn’t there, why would the sucralose enter the cell in the first place? If it has no specific transporter, it would be via diffusion - without the driving force, it wouldn’t diffuse.

Similarly, you state that sucralose is metabolized - what exactly do you mean by that? Because when someone says something is metabolized to me, I assume that it means that the compound is broken down. If that’s the case, then toxic levels of sucralose are unlikely to build up extracellularly, aren’t they? And thus, the osmotic driving force leading to sucralose diffusing across the membrane will be absent again?

Please correct me if you think I’m being retarded, but I don’t see how anything has been proven at all - and regardless, all of this is supposition; no human studies (i.e. the real studies that matter) have dug up a bunch of sucralose-riddled bodies.

22

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

23

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
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. …[/quote]

So, 2 grams of sucralose in a day suffer DNA damage - I haven’t bothered reading the study, so I’ll take you at your word. Essentially what you’re saying is that if [in rodent levels] there’s an enormous bolus of sucralose in the blood, some will enter cells and cause DNA damage. Well, fair enough. If you put enough of most things in the blood, some of it will end up crossing the cell membrane via simple osmosis.

But as there hasn’t been a proposed mechanism / sucralose specific transporter / etc, I don’t see how you can then make the suggestion that long term low dose usage is very likely to cause accumulated DNA damage. If the driving force extracellularly isn’t there, why would the sucralose enter the cell in the first place? If it has no specific transporter, it would be via diffusion - without the driving force, it wouldn’t diffuse.

Similarly, you state that sucralose is metabolized - what exactly do you mean by that? Because when someone says something is metabolized to me, I assume that it means that the compound is broken down. If that’s the case, then toxic levels of sucralose are unlikely to build up extracellularly, aren’t they? And thus, the osmotic driving force leading to sucralose diffusing across the membrane will be absent again?

Please correct me if you think I’m being retarded, but I don’t see how anything has been proven at all - and regardless, all of this is supposition; no human studies (i.e. the real studies that matter) have dug up a bunch of sucralose-riddled bodies.

24

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[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): 103Ã?¢??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 :)[/quote]

2g to a rodent isn’t the same as 2g to a human. I’m not saying sucralose is good. Just pointing out your logic is flawed in this case. For a human to reach an equivalent dose, they would need to ingest a lot of sucralose.

25

[quote]relentless2120 wrote:
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]

Excuse me? My “random useless post” was in direct response to someone who assumed (incorrectly) that I (or Modok) had no bio-chemistry background.

I’d hardly call that random or useless.

26

[quote]SkyNett wrote:

[quote]relentless2120 wrote:
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]

Excuse me? My “random useless post” was in direct response to someone who assumed (incorrectly) that I (or Modok) had no bio-chemistry background.

I’d hardly call that random or useless. [/quote]

Sorry but that part of my post was not directed at you at all, as you were clearly contributing to the actual conversation on sucralose and just brought up your education in response to a comment made directly at you. I was referring to another poster who simply stated that modok had read many textbooks but added nothing to the actual sucralose conversation. My post wasn’t ment to insult anyone it was simply an attempt to keep the conversation on track. I love when topics like this come up and sometimes it seems like if someone brings up an idea they have, flawed or not, it ends up with someone posting an opposing opinion, and then just back and forth flaming instead of intelligent discussion

27

No worries. Sorry I misunderstood. Back to the sucralose discussion!

Anyway, I’d say I would use it - in moderation. But that goes for most shit anyway…IMO… : )

28

[quote]anonym wrote:
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?[/quote]

I dont talk about personal details openly on forums, but if you want to talk science then you should be able to get a good idea of my level of education.

29

[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]

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.

As far as studies go for this discussion, I think its best to use some of the relevant facts, but I want to stick to science to come up with a better answer. 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.

And I apologise for being a bit pissy earlier, I’ve been in a bad mood since I started running EQ.

I’m open to a real debate and I’ll try and keep my mood at bay.

30

[quote]danchubb wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
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. …[/quote]

So, 2 grams of sucralose in a day suffer DNA damage - I haven’t bothered reading the study, so I’ll take you at your word. Essentially what you’re saying is that if [in rodent levels] there’s an enormous bolus of sucralose in the blood, some will enter cells and cause DNA damage. Well, fair enough. If you put enough of most things in the blood, some of it will end up crossing the cell membrane via simple osmosis.

But as there hasn’t been a proposed mechanism / sucralose specific transporter / etc, I don’t see how you can then make the suggestion that long term low dose usage is very likely to cause accumulated DNA damage. If the driving force extracellularly isn’t there, why would the sucralose enter the cell in the first place? If it has no specific transporter, it would be via diffusion - without the driving force, it wouldn’t diffuse.

Similarly, you state that sucralose is metabolized - what exactly do you mean by that? Because when someone says something is metabolized to me, I assume that it means that the compound is broken down. If that’s the case, then toxic levels of sucralose are unlikely to build up extracellularly, aren’t they? And thus, the osmotic driving force leading to sucralose diffusing across the membrane will be absent again?

Please correct me if you think I’m being retarded, but I don’t see how anything has been proven at all - and regardless, all of this is supposition; no human studies (i.e. the real studies that matter) have dug up a bunch of sucralose-riddled bodies. [/quote]

Metabolism occurs for the most part (if not completely??) within cells. For sucralose to be metabolised, it must be taken into a cell. Some of the studies mentioned I believe states that at normal or reasonable dosage levels sucralose IS metabolised to a degree.

31

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.

32

[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[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): 103Ã??Ã?¢??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 :)[/quote]

2g to a rodent isn’t the same as 2g to a human. I’m not saying sucralose is good. Just pointing out your logic is flawed in this case. For a human to reach an equivalent dose, they would need to ingest a lot of sucralose.
[/quote]

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!

33

[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.

34

[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.

35

[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]

Funny thing is, sucralose ALSO has a place on that VERY SAME list of simple molecules.

Not sure if that makes your claim right or wrong, seems like it kinda does both…

36

One of the many subjects where a “MODOK has spoken” is appropriate.

And nice pic, Lonnie!

37

Dont you guys see the FDA is trying to kill us all?

38

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.

39

Good post Modok

40

What do you think of Stevia?

Overview
Stevia is a type of natural sweetener derived from the leaves of a variety of plants that primarily grow throughout North and South America. Stevia is used as a sweetener and a sugar substitute because it has about 300 times the sweetness of sugar without the calories. However, stevia’s safety and potential side effects have generated controversy. According to the Mayo Clinic, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA, has approved refined stevia for use as a sugar substitute; however, whole-leaf or crude extracts of stevia are not approved. Consult your physician before using a product containing stevia.
Central Nervous System Effects
Your central nervous system is composed of your brain and spinal cord and serves as the collection point for nerve impulses. Stevia contains beta-caryophyllene and caryophyllene oxide, compounds that may depress the activity of your central nervous system. Beta-caryophyllene epoxides may depress central nervous system activity by crossing the blood-brain barrier and binding to cellular receptors that regulate neurological impulses within your brain. More research is needed to determine the long-term effects of stevia on both brain and spinal cord.
Top 2011 Online Grants Grant Funding May Be Available Go Back To School! www.ClassesUSA.com
Sponsored Links
Peripheral Nervous System Effects
Long-term stevia use may have adverse effects on your peripheral nervous system, which is comprised of sensory nerves that send and receive messages to and from your spinal cord and brain. Stevia may affect the transmission of nerve impulses to and from your central nervous system and may slow down nerve conduction velocity. Overdosing with stevia may lead to tingling or numbness in your hands and feet, similar to the feeling of neuropathy, as well as a temporary loss in motor control.
Psychological Effects
Stevia use may cause mild to severe psychological side effects, accordingn to The New Encyclopedia of Vitamins, Minerals, Supplements, and Herbs. Individuals suffering from psychosis, schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders may find a worsening of their symptoms as a result of stevia use. Stevia may interfere with the actions of anti-psychotic medications because they can compete for the same cellular receptors in the brain. Individuals taking anti-psychotic medications should consult with their physicians prior to using any products containing stevia.
Effects on Mood
Stevia may affect hormone and neurotransmitter production in the brain. Neurotransmitters, such as dopamine and serotonin, are important in the natural regulation of mood and greatly influence thoughts of happiness and satisfaction. When these compounds are inhibited, you may have increased thoughts of depression and sadness. If you suffer from depression, anxiety, or nervousness, stevia may compound these symptoms because it slows the release of dopamine and serotonin.

References
“The New Encyclopedia of Vitamins, Minerals, Supplements, and Herbs”; Nicola Reavley; 1999
“Mayo Clinic”; Stevia: Can It Help With Weight Control?; Katherine Zeratsky, R.D., L.D; 2010
“Human Anatomy and Physiology”; Elaine N. Marieb; 2004
Toxicology Data Network; Beta-Caryophyllene Epoxide; 2002