Chloropropanols are still not chlorine, the chlorine molecule doesn’t detach. You can read more on how sucralose is metaboliszed in the body here.
Chloropropanols may be produced at high temperatures and these may cause negative effects but this is still not totally clear. Again the link I provided explains this a bit more.
Why is this post being resuscitated 2 weeks later?
This entire forum is just people responding to years old posts lol.
I think I didn’t write it out enough to make sense, so I apologize about. I meant to say that chlorine anywhere: in molecules or not, typically tend to be toxic, even if it doesn’t detach.
Here’s what I found on chloropropanol: 1 and 2. So sucralose could produce HCl (which is toxic) and if glycerol is present, chloropropanol. This is if it’s heated though - so I guess it’s good to not to bake it, but I doubt people are doing that with this product.
Toxicological studies aren’t the entire picture, as from my knowledge, sugar alcohols, due to not being usable by the body, don’t get absorbed as much, and get metabolized differently. Looking at this study, sucralose impacts the gut and also the liver.
HCl is a necessary part of stomach acid. Without some “chlorine” in your stomach you wouldn’t be able to digest food. There is chlorine in your body at all times. You need it to live. Also, almost everything you eat contains some chlorine molecules, even fruits and vegetables.
I appreciate your concerns and point of view. I mentioned that baking could (it’s not clear) be an issue.
Sucralose isn’t a sugar alcohol but the whole point of artificial sweeteners is they can’t be used by the body unlike sugar. Taking single studies and looking at them in isolation isn’t helpful.
I’d really recommend reading our fully referenced article on sucralose that I’ve linked to previously.
Idk if that’s a good comparison, as you could say we have sodium in the body, so without some sodium you can’t have properly functioning nerves. It doesn’t mean that it’s healthy to have too much of it either. It’s also off-topic. I get what you’re saying that a little bit won’t hurt, as it’s already there - it’s just that people say that eat Huel for all their meals - that’s when it gets to be a lot - wouldn’t you say?
I’m not quite sure, as the article says " sucralose is a great choice both for baking and for commercial products that require a longer shelf life." when earlier there were concerns over it. I understand that there’s context in regards to the original part of the sentence, but it’ll be good to mention that 'great’s only referring to that sentence and not the rest of the article. It’s a little confusing. “it’s not affected by heat” too, when earlier it says it degrades into various products. I just don’t like bringing stuff up, but it’s the confusion is why I looked further into it. And I really do appreciate you helping me out with it all.
You’re right - sucralose is a tri-chlorinated sugar, and doesn’t end in -ol in the name, so it’s not a sugar alcohol. I saw the -OHs and thought it was when I looked at it late at night and kind of assumed all artificial sweeteners are sugar alcohols (which I shouldn’t’ve).
I thought it was a little strange that animal studies are disregarded, when that’s what’s used in toxicology to understand dose and toxicity. Animals are usually fed a large portion to see what happens. Of course, animals are not people, but I wouldn’t disregard everything for that, as they usually use animals that are close to the human body - or it wouldn’t happen. I’m not personally for animal testing, but I see how it works.
The issue about sucralose is a recurring theme: there aren’t many studies on it. That’s why single studies are looked at. And no, I don’t look at them in isolation, but if it’s a recurring theme among multiple articles, I won’t list them all - just one to start the discussion. Should I list them all in the future? I think that might help. But with sucralose, there are just aren’t many articles to work with, so it’s expected that it’ll be lacking.
Yes I agree, we will get the article updated.
They’re not disregarded, they’re really important to help set limits of toxicity, test and develop hypothesis but they need to be used alongside human data. So far, like you’ve said, the data is really mixed and there’s no strong evidence that sucralose does cause issues.
Breathing water = drowning
And yet, in the womb we “breathe” embryonic fluid, which, safe to assume, contains water, since the body is 75% water.
For the record, I am trying to be argumentative. But ina productive way.
I’m not comparing anything. I’m stating a fact that directly contradicts your statement.
You claim that consuming chlorine is toxic, regardless of the chemical it’s a part of. That is false.
Babies do not breathe amniotic fluid with their lungs. That is false. When you get one of these crazy ideas, please just take 5 minutes and look it up and attempt to actually understand what is happening in reality before you claim it as the truth.
I’ll not be responding to any future comments/posts from you because you are unwilling to change your mind when presented with facts.
Are you addressing me, Cellcubed? If so, I did actually read some information related to what I posted. While reading your posts I noticed you made the statement that the fetus does not breathe the amniotic fluid into its lungs. However, I came across this item that directly contradicts your declaration.
Lung and digestive system development:
By breathing and swallowing the amniotic fluid, the baby practices using the muscles of these systems as they grow.
You declared;
Babies do not breathe amniotic fluid with their lungs. That is false. When you get one of these crazy ideas, please just take 5 minutes and look it up and attempt to actually understand what is happening in reality before you claim it as the truth.
Perhaps you might follow your own advice?
Sorry, I misunderstood you. I thought you were implying that babies breathe amniotic fluid for oxygen.
No apologies, please. Thank you for clearing that up. I’m happy it didn’t get ugly.
I always figured it takes what oxygen it needs via the umbilical cord. Apparently I figured correctly.
The umbilical vein supplies the fetus with oxygenated, nutrient-rich blood from the placenta. Conversely, the fetal heart pumps low oxygen containing blood, nutrient-depleted blood through the umbilical arteries back to the placenta.
Either way: babies in the womb can’t consume Huel. Well. Indirectly, if mom eats Huel… nm
The part that struck me was the chemical “contaminant” of this food compared to any other.
Sodium is bad would be wrong to say because we need it for healthy/proper nerve function. Excessive sodium is bad might be more accurate, but excessive anything is bad.
I concede that there are ingredients and chemicals we might not want to consume for any number of reasons: allergies (peanuts, gluten, etc) or morals (meat is murder) or religion (tea is arbitrarily forbidden, no why given)
Everyone has a different tolerance for things and maybe the trace amounts of chemical X causes no problem compared to other unmonitored lifestyle choices… consuming high salt diet vs sedentary activity level or drinking alcohol - but those things are choices for the consumer rather a flaw in the product that contains them.
Idk, i guess i should stop replying to this thread
I can think of a few things I wouldn’t mind an excess of. ijs
I didn’t - as the quote says - ‘typically tend’, not regardless. I just don’t want my words to be taken with a different meaning than it shows is all. If you’re understanding what I say correctly and take issue with it, that’s fine though. Hopefully we’ll get on a level plane one day. I mean, not all chemicals with chlorine are bad: we use salt in our bodies right? Chlorine does have a use in the body too: https://mixsharediet.com/chlorine-used-body/. It just gets toxic quicker than other elements I know (not all), and many chlorine compounds are is all.
Same milked.
I really just want to get to the bottom of how people get sick from sucralose and yet others think it’s ok in a serious manner.