Topic: Your claims about sucralose are true, but...

Disclaimer: I am not claiming that sucralose isn't harmful.  There's a lot of subjective testimony to the contrary, and I believe them!  If they got sick after ingesting Splenda for long periods of time and got better after they stopped, then I absolutely believe them!  There are many studies that empirically conclude that sucralose absolutely kills helpful intestinal bacteria and mutates bacterial DNA in high concentrations, but they do not know why or how.
All I am saying is that the explanations on this site about why harmful effects exist cannot possibly be true.  I cannot--in good conscience--argue that sucralose does not have harmful effects.

I was reading your page on Splenda, and I came across a bit of a problem.  Your claims about sucralose are mostly true in that it breaks down into chlorine (and I personally believe your claims about aspartame are 100% true.  Horribly toxic stuff there), but the problem is that Splenda is only 5% sucralose.  It's 95% glucose, a natural plant sugar.

So, in 30 grams of Splenda, there are 1.5 grams of sucralose.  Only 0.225 grams of that sucralose is absorbed by the body and of that, only 0.0495 grams is metabolized.  That's WAY, WAY, WWAAAAAYYY less chlorine than you get from ingesting even one gram (about 18% of one teaspoon) of table salt.  Salt is half chloride ion.  If salt increases the amount of sodium in the body's cells, that must mean that the body is breaking it all up into sodium and chlorine.  So where is the chlorine going?  Into the body in much larger amounts than from Splenda!

Also, your page explaining the "chemical soup" of sucralose is ridiculous.  You see, compounds have this odd tendency to form compounds with completely different properties when they are mixed together.
I'm sure you've heard of hydrochloric acid and sodium hydroxide, right?  They're both extremely toxic.
But if I mix them together and let it settle, I can drink the result.  Why?  Because when mixed together, they form fresh, pure water and table salt.

The properties of the ingredients of something have absolutely no influence on the properties of the result.

My conclusion after carefully studying your website is that this entire website is an advertising campaign to sell your products.
You are confusing potential customers into buying your products with unsubstantiated claims of benefits and are under-representing the possible negative effects.  Also, most of the links you provide to products that "help people" are to websites that are registered in your name.
Now, to me, this sounds kind of like exactly what NutraSweet did.

On top of that, you're capitalizing on people's claims of being harmed by sucralose, which may be legitimate!  Your explanations for the mechanisms of its harm are also becoming widespread, preventing the scientific community from properly studying and determining the real reasons why sucralose is harmful.  You are indirectly keeping sucralose on the market and prolonging its ability to potentially hurt other people.

Last edited by PelPix (10-18-2011 3:59 pm)

Re: Your claims about sucralose are true, but...

Your very lengthy post can be corrected in a very short reply: research this more. You are incorrect in most everything you claim about sucralose. You need to read my book, Splenda: Is It Safe Or Not?. In my research, I have the actual chemical formula used to make sucralose, and it is a chemical soup and it is 75% chlorine.

I do not know where you have gotten your information, but I got mine from the creators of sucralose, Tate & Lyle. Believe what you choose, but do more research.

Re: Your claims about sucralose are true, but...

You don't seem to understand how chemistry works. The fact that the recipe for sucralose contains all these chemicals is completely irrelevant.  I never refuted your point of what it's made of!
Yes it does contain those chemicals, but it doesn't matter!  A compound's properties are not in any way related to the properties of the ingredients.

The fact that sucralose contains chlorine is also irrelevant.
You know what's half pure chlorine?  Table salt.  What's more, table salt is freely broken down by the body.  For every atom of sodium in your blood and cells from ingesting table salt, there's an atom of chlorine ion bouncing around.
Never fear, though!  You claim the chlorine found in sucralose are harmful, but they are actually not.  Chlorine plays a crucial role in regulating metabolic processes and their levels are strictly monitored by the kidneys.  We can't function without chlorine.
Normally we get such chlorine from salt.

Last edited by PelPix (10-22-2011 12:37 am)

Re: Your claims about sucralose are true, but...

Sucralose is NOT a chloride, dude. Sucralose is NOT table salt. There is a BIG difference. Is the chlorine in your swimming pool table salt?

Geeze.

Re: Your claims about sucralose are true, but...

Pelpix wrote: The properties of the ingredients of something have absolutely no influence on the properties of the result.

Sooooooo, what a product is MADE of has nothing to do with the final product? I don't get your logic at all. I disagree with you. Sooooooo, the chemicals in a pharmaceutical drug have nothing to do with the final drug itself?? Is this what you're saying? Sooooooo, the chemicals used to make a vaccine have nothing to do with the vaccine itself? And, soooooo, the ingredients to bake bread have nothing to do with the loaf??

Last edited by nash (10-28-2011 9:23 pm)

Re: Your claims about sucralose are true, but...

drjshull wrote:

Sucralose is NOT a chloride, dude. Sucralose is NOT table salt. There is a BIG difference. Is the chlorine in your swimming pool table salt?

Geeze.

The thing is, you're claiming on your website that sucralose is harmful BECAUSE it breaks down into chlorine and for no other reason.  If that were true, salt would be equally as harmful.

Funny thing is, I DO chlorinate my pool with table salt.

Last edited by PelPix (10-31-2011 1:54 am)

Re: Your claims about sucralose are true, but...

nash wrote:

Pelpix wrote: The properties of the ingredients of something have absolutely no influence on the properties of the result.

Sooooooo, what a product is MADE of has nothing to do with the final product? I don't get your logic at all. I disagree with you. Sooooooo, the chemicals in a pharmaceutical drug have nothing to do with the final drug itself?? Is this what you're saying? Sooooooo, the chemicals used to make a vaccine have nothing to do with the vaccine itself? And, soooooo, the ingredients to bake bread have nothing to do with the loaf??


Sooooooo, what a product is MADE of has nothing to do with the final product?
Yes.
Sooooooo, the chemicals in a pharmaceutical drug have nothing to do with the final drug itself??
Yes.
Is this what you're saying?
Yes!

Sooooooo, the chemicals used to make a vaccine have nothing to do with the vaccine itself?
Irrelevant.  Vaccines are not chemicals in the sense you're thinking of.  They are dead germs.

And, soooooo, the ingredients to bake bread have nothing to do with the loaf??
YES!
I'm glad you understand!

8

Re: Your claims about sucralose are true, but...

I am not arguing either that sucralose doesnt have harmful effects.

However, I am pretty certain that chlorine is not the cause of danger caused by sucralose. Table salt has way higher chloride ions. It was the first thing that came to my mind and Pelpix has a rational argument.

Re: Your claims about sucralose are true, but...

Splenda doesn't have table salt in it, dude. It's NOT sodium chloride in the sucrose molecule - IT'S CHLORINE - phosgene, dude. You haven't figured that out???

Re: Your claims about sucralose are true, but...

My belief is sodium chloride - and most chlorides - are more natural for the body because they compound in nature. If intake is balanced and minimal, as all intake of anything should be, then the body can assimilate that compound more naturally then man-made compounds, such as industrial chlorine, which is used to make Splenda. I have their patent and their formula. They use chlorine, benzene, acetone, methanol, to name a few chemicals in their formula. So maybe it's the acetone? The methanol? Sorry, it's 3/4 chlorine, so that's the dominant chemical.

I can't agree with you. I am not a fan of ingesting man-made chlorine. Why not simply go drink from your swimming pool?

And sodium chloride isn't the bad guy, in my opinion. Some people need more sodium chloride than others - it cleanses the liver and aids in nerve and brain function. It aids heart rate. Over-use and using adulterated sodium isn't healthy, but natural sodium has a function in health. Of course, getting your sodium from natural food sources (like celery) is the very best source.

11

Re: Your claims about sucralose are true, but...

pelpix, where did you get that Splenda is only 5% chlorine? The formula in Dr. Hull's book shows it is 75% chlorine. She's got the formula in there.

Re: Your claims about sucralose are true, but...

I know it's been a while since the last post, but I felt compelled to contribute.

Sucralose is a well-known compound.  It's formula is C12H19Cl3O8.  It has a registry number (CAS #) of 56038-13-2.   Its molecular weight is 397.64.

The three chlorine atoms in the compound represent 106 grams of the 400 gram molecule.  106 divided by 400 is about .27 which is equivalent to 27% by weight.

The remaining bulk of Splenda is dextrose and maltodextrin, neither of which contain chlorine.  If the claim of 75% referred to the amount of chlorine in the whole Splenda mixture, then the claim is even further from the truth!

From that we can easily deduce that the claim that sucralose is 75% chlorine is FALSE.

Last edited by skeptic (03-22-2012 4:13 pm)

Re: Your claims about sucralose are true, but...

drjshull wrote:

My belief is sodium chloride - and most chlorides - are more natural for the body because they compound in nature. If intake is balanced and minimal, as all intake of anything should be, then the body can assimilate that compound more naturally then man-made compounds, such as industrial chlorine, which is used to make Splenda. I have their patent and their formula. They use chlorine, benzene, acetone, methanol, to name a few chemicals in their formula. So maybe it's the acetone? The methanol? Sorry, it's 3/4 chlorine, so that's the dominant chemical.

I can't agree with you. I am not a fan of ingesting man-made chlorine. Why not simply go drink from your swimming pool?

And sodium chloride isn't the bad guy, in my opinion. Some people need more sodium chloride than others - it cleanses the liver and aids in nerve and brain function. It aids heart rate. Over-use and using adulterated sodium isn't healthy, but natural sodium has a function in health. Of course, getting your sodium from natural food sources (like celery) is the very best source.

I can point out a billion things wrong with this statement.  Allow me to pick through a few.
A. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INDUSTRIAL CHLORINE AND NATURAL CHLORINE.  They are the same composition.  Molecules do not come in flavors.

B."They use chlorine, benzene, acetone, methanol, to name a few chemicals in their formula. So maybe it's the acetone? The methanol?"

True, but those are ingredients in a chemical reaction, meaning they combine to form an entirely new substance that is different from the original substance.
Repeat after me:
"The properties of a chemical's ingredients have NOTHING to do with the properties of the resulting chemical"

If you mix equal amounts of an acid and a base together, you get water and a salt.  Both the ingredient chemicals are quite toxic, but the result is not.  The same thing applies with splenda.  They are using various poisonous and nonpoisonous substances to manually construct their target molecule, the toxicity of which is completely unrelated to the ingredients.  There is nothing odd or dangerous about this; it's just chemistry.

Last edited by PelPix (04-10-2012 1:02 pm)

14

Re: Your claims about sucralose are true, but...

You guys are so full of crap. Get a life.

Re: Your claims about sucralose are true, but...

Ditto!

Re: Your claims about sucralose are true, but...

And I'd like to add something:
Sucralose doesn't metabolize.  You eat it sucralose, and you poop it sucralose.  It's fiber.  It doesn't digest into anything!
And I'm not just automatically disbelieving anything Dr. Hull says either.  I'm barely into my 20's and aspartame took almost all of my hair before I cut it out of my diet.  Once I did, it all grew back!

Last edited by PelPix (05-04-2012 8:49 pm)

Re: Your claims about sucralose are true, but...

Best cocktail ever:
1 tall highball glass
1 shot of vodka
Twist of lime
Fill with pool water
Add ice, stir and enjoy

Now wasn’t that delicious.  Sarcasm intended, this is one of the most stupid arguments ever.  Why would anyone want to put chlorine into their body intentionally?  Municipalities put chlorine into the water systems to counter bad bacteria and hopefully prevent any maladies on the population.  Now as we all know municipal water has about the worst taste ever, haven’t found one yet that taste good, (period)……  Why mix it with sugar (to make IT taste good), ridiculous.   

PatB

Re: Your claims about sucralose are true, but...

PatB, you rock!! Here, here.....Dr. Hull writes in her Splenda book that the research proves Splenda breaks down as much as 15% in the body. But as you say, PatB, who would want to eat or drink chlorine and chlorine-laced foods???

Pelpix, you say you are young???   Is this how our younger generation thinks??? Now THAT's really scary.

Re: Your claims about sucralose are true, but...

PatB, please make the distinction between chlorine in a compound and dissolved chlorine.
sucralose contains chlorine atoms, but contains no molecular chlorine with the properties you describe.  The chlorine is BONDED. 
In chlorinated substances, the chlorine is DISSOLVED, not bonded.  Meaning that separate chlorine molecules are interspaced between the liquid molecules.

As for bonded chlorine, it has no effect on its own.  You need to understand that the elements that make a compound up have nothing to do with the properties of the final moleculeAn oxygen molecule with two oxygen atoms allows cells to function; an oxygen molecule with three oxygen atoms will kill you.

If oxygen--or any element for that matter--had some sort of basic reactionary characteristic that carries through all of its compound forms, why are ozone and oxygen different?
Take fluoride, for example.
Calcium fluoride (in a few naturally-occurring food sources) inert
sodium fluoride (Tap water, toothpaste)  bad

Last edited by PelPix (05-07-2012 2:29 am)

Re: Your claims about sucralose are true, but...

healthnutter wrote:

PatB, you rock!! Here, here.....Dr. Hull writes in her Splenda book that the research proves Splenda breaks down as much as 15% in the body. But as you say, PatB, who would want to eat or drink chlorine and chlorine-laced foods???

Pelpix, you say you are young???   Is this how our younger generation thinks??? Now THAT's really scary.

Yeah.  sucralose breaks down into chloride ions when certain intestinal flora digest it (Not on its own in the human body, which does not metabolize sucralose and passes it as fiber.)
But the same thing happens to table salt, and your body has no problem filtering that out on its own.  Even a small shake of table salt has TONS more chlorine than sucralose.  Tons and tons of times more.
And what's more, Splenda is BARELY 10% sucralose.  It's mostly dextrose and stuff.

Saying your body can't filter that out is an insult to your body.  It does better than you think it does.

Re: Your claims about sucralose are true, but...

PelPix this will be the last statement I will make on this thread.  This thread you generated in October 18, 2011 and it is the ONLY thread you have started.  Your contribution to this forum is virtually nonessential and worthless.  If the only thing you can discuss is the elemental weight of chlorine then as Nash says “dude, get a life”.   I for one am not a scientist nor chemist and I am thinking that YOU are a chemist “want-a-be”.  You may know what is written in a book about the various elements but you have no common sense.  You say you are barley in your 20’s and you come here spouting all this chemical stuff about atoms, molecules and chemical reaction.  Here is a quote from Wikipedia on the production of Splenda (sucralose).  Nowhere in it is the mention of sunshine, water or any other N-A-T-U-R--A-L  elements.  The only thing I can get from this is that Splenda is  A-R-T-F-I-C-I-A-L…… 

Quote:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucralose

“Tate & Lyle manufactures sucralose at a plant in Jurong, Singapore. Formerly, it was produced at a plant in McIntosh, Alabama. It is manufactured by the selective chlorination of sucrose (table sugar), which substitutes three of the hydroxyl groups with chloride. This chlorination is achieved by selective protection of the primary alcohol groups followed by acetylation and then deprotection of the primary alcohol groups. Following an induced acetyl migration on one of the hydroxyl groups, the partially acetylated sugar is then chlorinated with a chlorinating agent such as phosphorus oxychloride, followed by removal of the acetyl groups to give sucralose.”  “Common brand names of sucralose-based sweeteners are Splenda, Sukrana, SucraPlus, Candys, Cukren and Nevella.”

Now with the knowledge that your Splenda is made in China rather than Alabama, doesn’t that make you feel even better.  China has really been an aid to our ongoing health with what they have sent us in the past year.

Now as to your reply, I will not debate the chemical reaction of chlorine since I have “not a clue” as to what you are talking about (remember, I AM NOT A CHEMIST NOR SCIENTEST).  I was born with common sense and I now am bumping 70 so you my dear youngster you have a ways to go.  I do wish that the local pharmacy would carry “common sense” but alas I am afraid that one has be born with it.  Good luck in your quest for a healthy life because I am sure with the arguments you have at this age you will need it “down the road”

Oh, before i forget, go fix you a drink as i mentioned above and you are allowed to add a couple of packets of your favorvite Splenda before stiring, ENJOY.

Regards,
PatB

Re: Your claims about sucralose are true, but...

Well PelPix I guess I just lied, I do have one more addition to this thread.

Healthnutter, thanks for all your contribution to this forum, they are many and varied.  Thanks for your enthusiasm on my “cocktail”, doesn’t it sound just sooooo delicious.  Good luck to you on your quest for good health, I will be reading all your contributions.

PatB

Re: Your claims about sucralose are true, but...

PatB wrote:

PelPix this will be the last statement I will make on this thread.  This thread you generated in October 18, 2011 and it is the ONLY thread you have started.  Your contribution to this forum is virtually nonessential and worthless.  If the only thing you can discuss is the elemental weight of chlorine then as Nash says “dude, get a life”.   I for one am not a scientist nor chemist and I am thinking that YOU are a chemist “want-a-be”.  You may know what is written in a book about the various elements but you have no common sense.  You say you are barley in your 20’s and you come here spouting all this chemical stuff about atoms, molecules and chemical reaction.  Here is a quote from Wikipedia on the production of Splenda (sucralose).  Nowhere in it is the mention of sunshine, water or any other N-A-T-U-R--A-L  elements.  The only thing I can get from this is that Splenda is  A-R-T-F-I-C-I-A-L…… 

Quote:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucralose

“Tate & Lyle manufactures sucralose at a plant in Jurong, Singapore. Formerly, it was produced at a plant in McIntosh, Alabama. It is manufactured by the selective chlorination of sucrose (table sugar), which substitutes three of the hydroxyl groups with chloride. This chlorination is achieved by selective protection of the primary alcohol groups followed by acetylation and then deprotection of the primary alcohol groups. Following an induced acetyl migration on one of the hydroxyl groups, the partially acetylated sugar is then chlorinated with a chlorinating agent such as phosphorus oxychloride, followed by removal of the acetyl groups to give sucralose.”  “Common brand names of sucralose-based sweeteners are Splenda, Sukrana, SucraPlus, Candys, Cukren and Nevella.”

Now with the knowledge that your Splenda is made in China rather than Alabama, doesn’t that make you feel even better.  China has really been an aid to our ongoing health with what they have sent us in the past year.

Now as to your reply, I will not debate the chemical reaction of chlorine since I have “not a clue” as to what you are talking about (remember, I AM NOT A CHEMIST NOR SCIENTEST).  I was born with common sense and I now am bumping 70 so you my dear youngster you have a ways to go.  I do wish that the local pharmacy would carry “common sense” but alas I am afraid that one has be born with it.  Good luck in your quest for a healthy life because I am sure with the arguments you have at this age you will need it “down the road”

Oh, before i forget, go fix you a drink as i mentioned above and you are allowed to add a couple of packets of your favorvite Splenda before stiring, ENJOY.

Regards,
PatB

There is no difference between natural and artificial elements.
Good to know you're racist too.  That sure helps your argument.

The chlorination they're talking about is not the same process as the chlorination of water.  It's the addition of chlorine in the compound, rather than the dissolving of chlorine in the mixture.  Totally different effects.

The chemical reaction you "cannot debate" proves me right.  If you can't debate it, you're wrong by default.

What I've been trying to say here is that Dr. Hull is lying to all of you in order to make money.  She is creating a cult-like atmosphere in which she can easily extort your health problems for money.  She is a fraud and has NO concern for your health.  She isn't even a doctor in anything medical.  She's a doctor of geology.  The reason I'm posting so brashly is that I just can't stand the nerve of a woman who spends all day exploiting the misinformation of people so that she can make a quick buck.  It's disgusting.

Last edited by PelPix (05-07-2012 12:42 pm)