sucralose

[cellio]

The flavored water (with artificial sweetener) appeared yesterday. Today, an article on what sucralose is appeared on the cooler. (I'll admit that I hadn't gotten around to doing my own web search yet.)

So first off, the article appears to have been written by sucralose advocates, so take your artificial sugar with a grain of salt. But the claim is that it is derived wholly from sugar and that it passes through the body without being metabolized. Oh, and it's not carcenogenic (they say) and the FDA and WHO say it's safe (they say).

I've never heard of the stuff before, myself. Though I wonder if this is the same stuff as what Fran calls "Sucaril", which she says isn't sold in the US, is gettable in Canada, and is good for baking. (Artificial sweeteners like Nutrisweet apparently do foul things to the taste of cakes and stuff.) This article claims that sucralose is good for baking because it's altered sugar, not chemicals.

Comments

[chite.livejournal.com]

It's packaged in the US under the name "Splenda" and it's really good for baking. It has a more similar consistency to sugar than the other powdery sweetners, and you use it measure-for-measure like sugar when cooking/baking. It is sweeter than sugar, though, so you can use less for sweetening beverages.

http://www.splenda.com/

[yitz.livejournal.com]

i think most o these r based on the idea o taking normal sugar n just fiddlin w/ the molecular structure such that it no longer fits into our enzyme receptor sites...
like inverse sugar which is just the sugar molecule inverted (hence the catchy name).. in other words, it's chiral opposite, kinda like using a lefty batter against a lefty pitcher..i think..

well, that's the extent o my artificial sugar (and baseball) knowledge ..