Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

healthy ... brownies!!

doodle

doodle

Member
For the healthy part, use splenda instead of sugar. and instead of sprinkling powdered sugar on top, use some instead. Just make sure to smell the brownies before eating:toofunny:
 
If you find the results of baking soda and cocaine funny you are either warped or on a sad sad path. For your sake I hope this is just your kind of humor.

I have seen first hand and second hand the results and they are never pretty long term.
 
jcam222 said:
If you find the results of baking soda and cocaine funny you are either warped or on a sad sad path. For your sake I hope this is just your kind of humor.

I have seen first hand and second hand the results and they are never pretty long term.
Click to expand...

simply humor buddy
 
jcam222 said:
If you find the results of baking soda and cocaine funny you are either warped or on a sad sad path. For your sake I hope this is just your kind of humor.

I have seen first hand and second hand the results and they are never pretty long term.
Click to expand...

QFT
 
Splenda isn't "healthy" at all. It is chlorinated sugar. Chlorine bonded to carbon, bonded to sugar... synthetic chlorine acts much different than natural chlorine in the body, (deposited for much longer periods of time in fat) and the health hazards aren't known fully.

it's safe to say that splenda isn't safe.. .about as safe as abusing coke and tren at the same time.
 
Ubiquitous said:
Splenda isn't "healthy" at all. It is chlorinated sugar. Chlorine bonded to carbon, bonded to sugar... synthetic chlorine acts much different than natural chlorine in the body, (deposited for much longer periods of time in fat) and the health hazards aren't known fully.

it's safe to say that splenda isn't safe.. .about as safe as abusing coke and tren at the same time.
Click to expand...

well, your ugly:lol:
 
Ubiquitous said:
Splenda isn't "healthy" at all. It is chlorinated sugar. Chlorine bonded to carbon, bonded to sugar... synthetic chlorine acts much different than natural chlorine in the body, (deposited for much longer periods of time in fat) and the health hazards aren't known fully.

it's safe to say that splenda isn't safe.. .about as safe as abusing coke and tren at the same time.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I was waiting for somebody to "out" splenda for how it is manufactured. There is certainly concern about the carbon bonded Chlorine and its effects in the body. At least we know what cocaine does to the body.

Sugar is not a poison, the issue is that most people get too much in their diet.

Most sugar( salt and fat) substitutes are hazardous chemicals,that have politically motivated origins and profit motivated distribution trails.
 
doodle said:
For the healthy part, use splenda instead of sugar. and instead of sprinkling powdered sugar on top, use some coke instead. Just make sure to smell the brownies before eating:toofunny:
Click to expand...

My friend, to quote GOOD WILL HUNTING.

Its not your fault, its not your fault, its not your fault.
 
doodle said:
For the healthy part, use splenda instead of sugar. and instead of sprinkling powdered sugar on top, use some coke instead. Just make sure to smell the brownies before eating:toofunny:
Click to expand...

Maybe you should crush ephedrine pills, mix them with baking soda, and see if it somes close to crack (j/k) LOL.
 
Ubiquitous said:
Splenda isn't "healthy" at all. It is chlorinated sugar. Chlorine bonded to carbon, bonded to sugar... synthetic chlorine acts much different than natural chlorine in the body, (deposited for much longer periods of time in fat) and the health hazards aren't known fully.

it's safe to say that splenda isn't safe.. .about as safe as abusing coke and tren at the same time.
Click to expand...

That is only a worry if the Chloride comes off of the sugar. And, usually, when chlorine leaves a molecule it takes electrons with it, yielding Cl-, the ion that's just a little bit important in our physiology. And, the same Cl- you get from table salt Na+Cl-, which dissociates into Na+ and Cl- separately in our bodies, which is a hugely aqueous environment. (Although, I guess if Cl- was coming off of sucralose and leaving ionized sucralose molecules you've got other things to potentially worry about, but sucralose is entirely temperature stable, so even cooking with it there is no worry.)

The chlorine isn't synthetic either. As far as I know the chlorine in splenda isn't in some funky isotopic form.
 
While I'm on this topic, equal (aspartame) has a bad rep too because of its tendency to produce small amounts of methanol--which can be very toxic when it is metabolized to formaldehyde and them formic acid.

However, the amount of methanol produced in a packet of equal is considerably less that you'd get in even an apple. Hardly anything to fret over.

Good article on how much methanol you get in an apple (~25-50mg): Invalid Link Removed
Good article on how much methanol is found in aspartame (~20mg): Invalid Link Removed
 
Well too much of anything is bad for you. If you have to have a soda(pop if you live in the south I guess...), then you are better off having a diet one with artificial sweetner than with sugar. Thats my opinion, I welcome others.
 
Ubiquitous said:
Splenda isn't "healthy" at all. It is chlorinated sugar. Chlorine bonded to carbon, bonded to sugar... synthetic chlorine acts much different than natural chlorine in the body, (deposited for much longer periods of time in fat) and the health hazards aren't known fully.

it's safe to say that splenda isn't safe.. .about as safe as abusing coke and tren at the same time.
Click to expand...

I thought it was chlorinated sorbitol, but I could be wrong. The theory behind the chlorination (going off an article I once read from BB.com) is that digestive enzymes have a tough time recognizing splenda as a sugar, so it's not digested so great.

I remember hearing (my exgirlfriend talking about her biology professor) that some people contain a gene which enables them to digest sucralose. Of course the amount of sucralose necessary to sweeten something is 100-fold less than of sugar, so the calories contained are much more trivial. If you look on the ingredients of a packet of splenda, you'll see that dextrose and maltodextrin are the main ingredients.
 
thesinner said:
The theory behind the chlorination (going off an article I once read from BB.com) is that digestive enzymes have a tough time recognizing splenda as a sugar, so it's not digested so great.
Click to expand...
That's why mostly anything not natural or "artificial" is not the greatest thing in the world...that's what I believe anyways.
 
Its chlorinated sucrose (table sugar).

And the maltodextrin / dextrose issue is probably one of the big ones with Splenda. They're advertising it as calorie free, but they use calorie containing fillers. They just take advantage of the fact that the FDA allows them to say that anything less than 5 calories is essentially no calories. Regardless, its not very many calories though.
 
dannyboy9 said:
That's why mostly anything not natural or "artificial" is not the greatest thing in the world...that's what I believe anyways.
Click to expand...

Before we started using "not natural" things, such as preservatives and medications people didn't live very long.

But, in a more narrow sense I think what you said is great. For example, if the food you're eating has been "enhanced" in any way, its probably hi GI and full of shi1tty fats. :)
 
kwyckemynd00 said:
Its chlorinated sucrose (table sugar).

And the maltodextrin / dextrose issue is probably one of the big ones with Splenda. They're advertising it as calorie free, but they use calorie containing fillers. They just take advantage of the fact that the FDA allows them to say that anything less than 5 calories is essentially no calories. Regardless, its not very many calories though.
Click to expand...

What I was getting at with the concept of chlorinated sorbitol is that it would be bonded to an oxygen rather than a carbon (as Ubi had mentioned). Sorbitol is hydrogenated sucrose, and the proton in the hydroxyl group should be easily halogenated. I'm sure there's more ways to get from point A (table sugar) to point B (sucralose) since sucralose is not patented, but Splenda is.

As for the whole "Calorie Free" bit. Adding filler (i.e Maltodextrin and/or Dextrose) is imperative for Splenda to be used in Packets. If it's 100x sweeter than sugar (by what measurements I'm not quite for certain), only a 1% equivalence of sugar would be needed. In Layman's terms, if they didn't use filler, they'd basically be selling empy packets. As long as you're only using a few packets a day (not downing 3-4 packs on everything you eat), there shouldn't be much of a problem, 5 calories is only 1/4% of a 2000 Calorie diet, and I doubt anyone on this board eats a 200 Calorie diet.
 
dannyboy9 said:
I'm going to end all your sugar wars with one word:

Xylitol:woohoo:
Click to expand...


I think once you get past the point of understanding that it doesn't have to taste good, you're there. It may not be one word, but I've got 3 words to end any sweetener battles:

Grow A Pair.
 
thesinner said:
What I was getting at with the concept of chlorinated sorbitol is that it would be bonded to an oxygen rather than a carbon (as Ubi had mentioned). Sorbitol is hydrogenated sucrose, and the proton in the hydroxyl group should be easily halogenated. I'm sure there's more ways to get from point A (table sugar) to point B (sucralose) since sucralose is not patented, but Splenda is.
Click to expand...
Sorbital (Invalid Link Removed) and Sucralose (Invalid Link Removed) have way different chemical structures. Perhaps you were thinking of a different sugar. Here is sucrose for reference: Invalid Link Removed

I'm sure you can get at it many different ways, but getting from sorbitol to sucralose would be much more of a pain in the ass than getting replacing a few hydroxy groups with a halogen (Cl).

As for the whole "Calorie Free" bit. Adding filler (i.e Maltodextrin and/or Dextrose) is imperative for Splenda to be used in Packets. If it's 100x sweeter than sugar (by what measurements I'm not quite for certain), only a 1% equivalence of sugar would be needed. In Layman's terms, if they didn't use filler, they'd basically be selling empy packets. As long as you're only using a few packets a day (not downing 3-4 packs on everything you eat), there shouldn't be much of a problem, 5 calories is only 1/4% of a 2000 Calorie diet, and I doubt anyone on this board eats a 200 Calorie diet.
Click to expand...
Understood. They gotta do what they gotta do, of course. And, I don't know of any alternative fillers to use, personally.
 
thesinner said:
I think once you get past the point of understanding that it doesn't have to taste good, you're there. It may not be one word, but I've got 3 words to end any sweetener battles:

Grow A Pair.
Click to expand...
Act like you have a pair:think:

I've already gotten past that point little buddy. I just said Xylitol because all the sugar substitutes are synthetic fake sugar crap. I was even talking to you anyways. I love it how you decided to take it upon yourself to think I was.:icon_lol:I'm not here to have an e-scrap so go get childish and mouth off via internet with someone else.
 
dannyboy9 said:
Act like you have a pair:think:

I've already gotten past that point little buddy. I just said Xylitol because all the sugar substitutes are synthetic fake sugar crap. I was even talking to you anyways. I love it how you decided to take it upon yourself to think I was.:icon_lol:I'm not here to have an e-scrap so go get childish and mouth off via internet with someone else.
Click to expand...

Don't take it personally, I'm just joking around. And that wasn't specifically pointed towards you.

I'm all about the :lol: than the :duel:

People make such a huge deal about which sugar substitutes are better than others, but deep down, they're all bad. The best way to get past any hazards caused by a sweetener is to just eat your foods straight (which is unheard-of to some people).
 
It's hard to see who you were aiming at with your post since you quoted me right before making your statement. I never took anything personal but it was fun while it lasted.:dance:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top