Jump to content

Talk:Splenda

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs) at 02:06, 7 February 2024 (Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Advertisement?

Splenda itself is a product -- it has nothing to do with sweet tea. I'm not entirely sure that this page should become a recipe book. 97.96.68.40 (talk) 04:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and I deleted "Cooking strategies".

==Cooking strategies==
In 2008, McNeil Nutritionals recommended to home bakers to alter their recipes to replace one cup of sugar with 3/4 cup granulated sucralose and 1/4 cup sugar, in order to give a more authentic texture, moisture, and mouth feel to baked goods made with sucralose. The caloric load of traditional Southern sweet tea can be offset by substituting Splenda for 1/3 of the sugar ingredient typically used, thus adding a 2:1 sugar-splenda mixture that preserves the integrity of traditional recipes.[1]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.76.201.9 (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

References

  1. ^ Long, Sharron (2003) Extreme Lo-Carb Cuisine: 250 Recipes With Virtually No Carbohydrates F+W Media, Inc. ISBN 978-1593370077

wait a second...

according to this article, splenda is "95% dextrose". and dextrose is the biologically active enantiomer of glucose that the body can metabolize. so if splenda is essentially 95% sugar, how is it such low calorie? the only way i see how splenda could be low calorie is if the 5% sucralose is amazingly sweet. -- Bubbachuck (talk) 22:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sucralose itself is very very sweet. Also, the dextrose is made to be light and fluffy so that it is less dense and contributes fewer calories per volume. -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sucralose tastes 600 times sweeter than sucrose. (So what you want for a sugar analogue is 1⁄600 sucralose and 599⁄600 dextrose bulk). —Sladen (talk) 00:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification to both of you. Could someone clarify whether the 95% dextrose is referring to volume then? or weight? i assumed it was by weight, which would then suggest that a packet of Splenda is basically a packet of sugar. -- Bubbachuck (talk) 20:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your question the maltodextrin (not dextrose) filler that is added to sucralose to give it bulk is very light and fluffy so has rather few calories per unit volume. That, together with the fact that sucralose is so much sweeter, explains how a teaspoon of Splenda can be very sweet but have very few calories.CharlesHBennett (talk) 21:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Splenda Recipes Book

Here is a recent Splenda recipes book, for use in this article. The beginning of the book gives basic information about how Splenda is made, and why it has no nutritional value. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Koch, Marlene (2008). Marlene Koch's Sensational Splenda Recipes. New York: M. Evans and Company, Inc. ISBN 1590771389.

Gas

This is not a joke. However, for some odd reason, it is deleted every time it is put in - although it is verifiable in hundreds of online testimonials and in some academic journals.

Does someone have a problem with this? Why? If you have access to ALL of the academic journals, then you would see it is supported. I can only get some of the abstracts.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=splenda%20flatulence&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelatomato (talk • contribs) 00:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy requires that information can be backed up with reliable sources, and this policy does not include blogs among reliable sources. I read all the documents linked to in your Google scholar search, but none of them contain any claims that Splenda and/or sucralose cause the problems that you suggest, only that sugar alcohols cause those problems. None of the linked documents are academic journals either. If you can provide me with the details of the references in peer reviewed scientific journals that you are referring to, I can probably get full text copies of them and include the relevant information in the article. -- Ed (Edgar181) 01:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Don't bother looking for the peer reviewed articles, because they won't exist. One of the advantages of Splenda is that it does NOT cause gas like other artificial sweeteners (such as sugar alcohols like sorbitol, maltitol, xylitol, etc.

Health risks?

include controversy on health risks and Duke study : http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all?content=10.1080/15287390802328630 65.82.126.100 (talk) 15:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This study is generally considered to be flawed. DrMatthias (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By whom? The referees for the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health evidently felt it was worth publishing. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus of researchers in nutrition is that this study doesn't come close to mimicking "real world" conditions. See for example this news article http://www.foodnavigator.com/Science-Nutrition/Sucralose-safety-scientifically-sound-Expert-panel which quotes an expert panel which evaluated this study and concluded it is "not scientifically rigorous and is deficient in several critical areas that preclude reliable interpretation of the study results with regard to the effects of either sucralose or Splenda in rats or humans”. DrMatthias (talk) 20:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Thanks for the link. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The study may be considered to be flawed by those who stand to profit by discrediting it, but it is defended by other professionals as well, including Professor and editor in chief of the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Sam Kacew. Defense of the Methodology

Defence of the methodology

In an email correspondence with FoodNavigator.com, Professor Sam Kacew, Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A, expressed his strong support for the methodology used in the study, refuting claims from McNeil that good laboratory practices (GLP) were ignored.

“I want to emphasize and make it absolutely clear that it states in the manuscript, ‘The protocol for these studies was approved by the Duke University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee ( IACUC)" which means that GLP must be followed,” said Professor Kacew.

“If this is contravened then all funding from NIH to Duke University is terminated,” he added.

“Secondly, this manuscript was sent to three independent experts for evaluation. All three reviewers recommended publication with revisions. The authors revised the manuscript and the revisions were once again sent to the reviewers. All three reviewers recommended publication of the revised manuscript.

“This constitutes a rigourous scientific evaluation of this manuscript,” said Professor Kacew.

Ultimately, while the methodology is being debated, the question remains, why not just repeat the study? If 100 studies showed sucralose to be safe but 1 showed it to be unsafe, I'd order 5 more studies, identical to the one that showed it was unsafe to see if the results could be duplicated. Instead, McNeil put together a panel of experts to refute the methodology of the test as opposed to repeating the test themselves to see if there is any truth to it. This fact alone is very telling. We were once told that tobacco and saccharin and NutraSweet were safe too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.112.154 (talk • contribs) 14 April 2010

This is a good point. If I have to choose between an independent study and an "expert panel" thrown together by a corporate special interest (McNeil) with an obvious agenda, I'd give greater weight to the independent study. It should be described in the article, along with McNeil's rebuttal. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The information has been added into the article and removed repeatedly. I don't know what else i can do. Cccerberus (talk) 19:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two things here. I've worked in medical research, and the IACUC really is to make sure the animals are not mistreated, not that the study is designed correctly. Also, I find it curious that the fact that the Duke study was funded by the Sugar Association is not included in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.123.132 (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything here as to why the Duke study is `flawed'. What particular objections to the methodolgy employed are flawed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.136.67.251 (talk) 14:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Safe for diabetics

If it's 95% sugars, how can it possibly be "safe" for diabetics? Are there any reliable sources for this claim that don't originate from the Splenda web site? Sucralose itself may be safe. But Splenda? That seems like a dubious claim, and I have tagged it accordingly in the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DrMatthias added a citation to this statement but changed it to discuss sucralose, not Splenda. I was thinking of doing this myself, but I went ahead and reverted back to the version I tagged. Here is my reasoning:
This article is about Splenda. Any claims related specifically to the safety of sucralose belongs in the sucralose article. Putting those claims here in the Splenda article misleads readers to assume that claims about sucralose must also apply to Splenda. Sucralose is one ingredient of Splenda. Sucralose is not Splenda, the product.
I have been looking for a reliable source that (a) says Splenda is safe for diabetics, and (b) describes the glycemic index and glycemic load of Splenda. So far I have found only forums and blogs that say this. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DrMatthias restored the cite with a qualifier. That looks better, thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The real problem here is that "Splenda" is many things. It is a brand name used on many different types of products. Some of these products, such as the yellow packets, contain dextrose and maltodextrin. Some Splenda-branded products, including some prepared drinks, have added sucralose, but don't have added sugars or other carbohydrates. The sucralose itself is perfectly safe for diabetics. The degree to which sugars and carbohydrates (including dextrose and maltodextrin) can be safe or not for diabetics is going to vary significantly from one patient to another. Perhaps my wording could be improved, but I think it provides the reader with proper guidance. DrMatthias (talk) 21:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Production

Until there is a section called Production, I've moved this out of External Links:

In my opinion, a Production section describing the manufacturing process in brief (with high quality verifiable secondary sources) would be a good place for:

  • How is sugar converted to sucralose?
  • How many plants are there? What's their output?

--Lexein (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

rm tag:Citation style confusing

I've pulled the "citation style is confusing" - this will always be the case with Wikipedia cites, because when authors are present, they're always listed first, but when there AREN'T authors or dates(!), the title is first. I'd be happier with a Title-always-first format, but that's not going to happen. Oh, Harvard, how you vex me. --Lexein (talk) 20:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

″== Diarrhea == Splenda causes diarrhea. Are there no WP:RS that say that? --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing to research. I anticipate two solid cited sentences, and no small amount of controversy - heh. --Lexein (talk) 16:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it causes diarrhea or not shouldn't be too hard to determine. Splenda/sucralose has been evaluated by various regulatory agencies for many years, so if there were any diarrhea side effects, I would expect no trouble finding reliable sources (US FDA, European Food Safety Authority, etc.) saying so. I just did a search of the scientific literature, and the only thing that turns up are reports of using sucralose in formulations of medicines used to treat diarrhea (US patent 2005032892, for example). So this certainly favors an argument that it does not cause diarrhea. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some studies are compiled here: http://www.feingold.org/Research/splenda.html
Interesting quote: "Sucralose can cause gastrointestinal problems severe enough to cause death." However, the referenced study involves tests on rabbits, not humans. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. That is an interesting quote. :) But that's commentary from the website's author. The cited report itself says the effects "occur non-specifically in response to high doses of poorly absorbed compounds" - consuming large amounts of anything you can't digest will cause problems. So I guess people should avoid stuffing themselves with pure sucralose. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have diarrhea any time I consume Splenda. The problem is, everything that comes up readily in a Google search about diarrhea and Splenda is a message board, which is inadmissable under WP:RS, which is why I posed the question.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 16:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC) 16:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to undertake original research (WP:OR) as often as you like for your own benefit, but—as you rightly note—the results are inadmissible for inclusion into Wikipedia, and certainly not something that can be generalised. The following tale about generalised presumptions springs to mind:
An astronomer, a physicist and a mathematician are on a train in Scotland. The astronomer looks out of the window, sees a black sheep standing in a field, and remarks, "How odd. Scottish sheep are black." "No, no, no!" says the physicist. "Only some Scottish sheep are black." The mathematician rolls his eyes at his companions' muddled thinking and says, "In Scotland, there is at least one sheep, at least one side of which looks black.
The above can be found at Mathematical joke#Stereotypes of mathematicians. —Sladen (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to say that this is a quality talk page thread. Test35965 (talk) 08:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Calories versus Kilocalories?

I believe the article uses energy units incorrectly. It talks in several places about "calories" where the actual unit seems to be "kilocalories". For example, it states that a 2.8-gram packet of sugar contains about 11 calories, even though the Wikipedia page on sugar states that 100g of sugar contain 387 kilocalories (= 387,000 calories, which sounds like the correct value to me, given what I know about caloric content). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.18.15.219 (talk) 10:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retail pack formats: Unreferenced materials?

There was a notice about unreferenced materials in regards to the section "Retail pack formats". I removed the section and the notice, then edited the top section to include a single sentence about the forms that Splenda is available in (with a reference). I think including a list of all the types and variations of the product seems more like marketing and less like notability. Encyclopediaclown (talk) 07:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Animal studies

From WP:MEDRS:

"If the findings involve phase I or phase II clinical trials, small studies, studies that did not directly measure clinically important results, laboratory work with animal models, or isolated cells or tissue, then these findings are probably only indirectly relevant to understanding human health; in these cases, they should be entirely omitted."

In what way is the Splenda article not governed by this rule? Ultra Venia (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In what way does this have anything to do with primary sources? Your quote from WP:MEDREV is precisely concerning the removal of primary sources as not having been vetted. The section is titled "Respect secondary sources" which is what has been used concerning a now-vetted 2008 report.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The content that Ultra Venia removed was in a section related to human health. For Wikipedia to report in this section on laboratory studies performed on animals which have unknown relevance to human health can be misleading. And since Splenda/sucralose has been extensively evaluated in humans and the effects observed in animals have not been reported in humans, reporting effects in humans (or lack thereof, in this case) should supersede the reporting of effects seen in animal models. The policy quoted above makes it clear that studies only indirectly relevant to understanding human health should be entirely omitted. (And just to clarify, Ultra Venia's quote comes from WP:MEDRS, not WP:MEDREV.) -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look closely...it is WP:MEDREV which is part of WP:MEDRS. The policy guideline he is citing is about removing primary sources in lieu of secondary reliable sources. The quoted phrase is "If the findings involve phase I or phase II clinical trials, small studies, studies that did not directly measure clinically important results, laboratory work with animal models, or isolated cells or tissue, then these findings are probably only indirectly relevant to understanding human health; in these cases, they should be entirely omitted." but they come from a section which is describing the removal of primary sources and should be seen in the context of the section which begins.."Individual primary sources should not be cited or juxtaposed so as to "debunk" or contradict the conclusions of reliable secondary sources."
That guideline is being interpreted in error, I believe. It is strictly addressing primary sources..."Scientific findings are often touted in the popular press as soon as the original, primary research report is released, and before the scientific community has had an opportunity to analyze the new results." The cherry-picked portion about animals follows this and should not be misconstrued as any such study. Those that have been vetted do not apply here.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the guideline should be interpreted such that when effects in humans evaluated in a secondary source are available, they should supersede discussion of effects in an animal model reported in a primary source. In this case, it is complicated a bit by the fact that the primary source report has been debated a little, but that debate seems to revolve around the validity of the animal study, which is not relevant to us in the context of this article where human health effects are discussed. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MEDRS isn't the only relevant guideline here. WP:NOTABILITY also matters. I restored the removed content because the primary source was vetted (or rather challenged) almost immediately by the Splenda manufacturer in the context of what this study means for human health. In addition, the ensuing controversy (not just the study) received fairly significant press coverage that alleged or implied funding bias on both sides.
Even if this content does not belong in a section devoted to human health effects (and I argue that it does due to the context of the controversy), then that's a reason to rearrange the article, not remove an entire swath of well-sourced text about a notable event. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actual Caloric Content

(For this post, I am using Food Calories which equal Kilocalories...)

The article states, "The actual caloric content of a single-serving (1-gram packet) of Splenda is 3.36 calories, 31% of the calories of a single-serving (2.8-gram packet) of granulated sugar (10.8 calories)."

This may have been true at one time for the single-serving packets. However, most of us who use much Splenda buy the 5-Lb. equivalent bags at the grocery. While these bags are equal to 5 Lbs. of sugar, they weigh only 9.7 ounces. Five pounds is 80 ounces. 80 / 9.7 gives a bulking factor for the fluffed maltodextrin of 8.25. So as printed on the 5 Lb. bag, a full one-teaspoon serving, equivalent to 4g sugar, weighs only 4g/8.25 = 0.5g. That makes for 1.8 Food Calories for each full teaspoon (4g) serving. A 2.8g sugar equivalent serving is then 0.34g of (bulked) Splenda, providing roughly 1.2 Food Calories. This is roughly one-third the value given in the article. So, that published figure of 3.36 calories may be off by a factor of 3, when compared to the most widely used form of Splenda, bulked with maltodextrin. EvelDewar (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvelDewar (talk • contribs) 17:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Splenda. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Natural or unnatural? Let's keep the intro NPOV.

To say Splenda is a sugar substitute derived from sugar is to imply it is "natural". Since many people think anything natural is good and anything unnatural is bad, the following correct statements have very different public relations consequences.

  • "Sucralose is made from sugar."
  • "Sucralose is an non-nutritive artificial sweetener made by partial chlorination of sugar."

The naturalness issue, and the conflicting spins put on it by sucralose versus sugar manufacturers, are thoroughly treated in the Marketing Controversy section of the article, so it is best kept out of the introduction. Therefore I have changed the introduction to say merely that Splenda is a sucralose-based artificial sweetener.CharlesHBennett (talk) 20:53, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patent

The process patent of Splenda is under Steven Catani — Preceding unsigned comment added by CataniUSA (talk • contribs) 14:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More clarity needed in the section discussing safe amounts/body weight

The article offers a number of milligrams/day/kilogram of *sucralose*, but is vague about the percentage of sucralose that's actually in Splenda. This seems to make it impossible to know how many milligrams of sucralose is being consumed. I realize that it's likely almost impossible to consume too much in normal circumstances, but something closer to a defined amount would be good to have in a reference source like Wikipedia. 50.86.156.24 (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Splenda&oldid=1204400611"