KennyR wrote:
Nope, Splenda/Surcralose goes straight through the body. Those big chlorine groups make it as unreactive as hell (stearic hindrance), although it still has the hydroxyl kick it needs to make it taste sweet.
Same basic overall shape and dipole presumably helps fool the taste receptors. The chlorine, however, shouldn't tightly bond to the active sites in enzymes that would metabolise (IIRC hydrogen bonding plays an important role in the keying of sugars to the appropriate enzymes) it.
Few questions (not knowing the overall structure of it)
Does sucralose hydrolyse into chlorinated glucose in the same way as ordinary sucrose?
Do (if they occur) the chlorinated glucose molecules still exist as open chain form in solution?
If this occurs, it isn't impossible that they can be incorporated into polysaccherides (linking glucose units together isn't the same as breaking them down for energy production and hence may not be affected by the chloro substitution as readily), even if they can't be metabolised as a fuel source. That would imply long term storage of these molecules in the liver etc. that could prove dangerous in the (very) long term.
When we studied sweeteners at uni and how they work, sucralose hadn't been approved yet. That's not because it's nasty, but because the FDA are understandably anal about what goes into food.
One should hope so too. That said, they already allow a great deal of crap into food that is known (despite being passed at the time) to have adverse effects, especially in the levels that are permitted.
You're quite right to be wary of chlorine radicals. I really don't like the idea of filling myself full of organochlorides. Tests on sucralose said in theory it could be changed to chlorofructose in the body or in the sewers later by bacteria, quite a nasty chemical. I wouldn't opt for Splenda. The environment has enough alien chlorine based horrors floating around.
Quite.
