Is plain sugar healthier than sucralose?

Question

Being that sucralose is marketed to the health conscious and diabetics, what are the adverse effects (if any) of sucralose consumption, and is sucralose just as safe (for non-diabetics) to consume as sugar?

shoblya - People who diet try to decrease caloric intake. Sucralose is a 0 calorie sweetener. Regardless if you are diabetic, the health benefits of a zero calorie anything is a major to someone on a diet.

Answer 1

Sucralose is better for most people.

SOME people find that any artificial sweetener affects their blood glucose as much or almost as much as actual sugar.

Of course, the best thing would be to do without either as much as possible. Once you get out of the habit of eating and drinking very sweet things it's amazing how your taste changes and you can't tolerate the sweet stuff any more. For example, when I switched from Coke to Diet Coke, after a while I found that I couldn't drink regular Coke because it tastes like syrup to me now. And now that I've quit sweet drinks altogether (I rarely drink anything other than water) as well as giving up sugar-filled foods I find my tolerance/need for sweets has gone down even further.

But the odd serving of Sucralose ain't gonna kill you, and it's definitely better for you than sugar.

Answer 2

1

Answer 3

The answer to your question depends on what type of diet a person has, and how much sugar or sucralose a person consumes. Sucralose isn't really healthy - the benefit of sucralose is that ill effects of sugar are avoided when sucralose or other artificial sweeteners are substituted for sugar.

In the medical literature, sucralose has been shown to trigger migraine headaches and affect the size of certain organs such as the thymus, but adverse effects don't seem to occur until doses are fairly large (around 20-25% of diet). At moderate levels of consumption, sucralose is considered to be non-toxic. There seems to be some debate about whether or not sucralose is carcinogenic. The American Dietetic Association says: ". . . consumers can safely enjoy a range of nutritive [such as sugar and fructose] and nonnutritive sweeteners [which includes sucralose] when consumed in a diet that is guided by current federal nutrition recommendations, such as the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and the Dietary References Intakes, as well as individual health goals."

Answer 4

2

Answer 5

Splenda (sucralose) is not typically absorbed (only 15% is absorbed in the GI tract). Any that is absorbed is secreted by teh kidney.

The most adverse affect is that it could cause something called OSMOTIC DIARRHEA. Meaning that if you have A LOT, then the body will keep water (or move water into) the gut to dilute out the sucralose.

Chemically, Sucralose is similar to sugar. It replaced 3 hydroxyl groups with chlorine. So, its no big deal.

Enjoy.

Answer 6

Don't worry, its typically the scare tactics of the sugar industry. Most of the studies that claim Splenda is dangerous are funded by them.

If you take less than 10 gm/lb of body weight, there are no serious side effects that you should be worried about.

Answer 7

It is fine. If you have a family history of diabetes it is best to stick to diet soda (If you drink them at all). People that are zealots will say that Splenda, or Equal, Sweet & Low are bad for you and cause cancer, and that is a bunch of bull. Every doctor that I have asked has said that all the info against these products on the internet is garbage.

Answer 8

All prepackaged instant oatmeals are chocked full of additives and sodium. Your girlfriend is right, using whole oats and adding your own sweetner is alot better for your two year old.

Answer 9

organic unrefined sugar is the only whay to go. All other synthetic alternatives and even the bleached white sugar are no good for your health.

Answer 10

Yes. Unless you are diabetic or have high sugar levels for some other medical reason, sugar is best.