doodle
Member
- Awards
- 0
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:
i need somethingyou ok dude? need a hug?
you know whats up:afro:Back AWAY from the baking soda!
simply humor buddyIf 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.
Maybe he really did make those brownies... :think: :fool2:Obviously it isn't brownies.
QFTIf 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.
well, your ugly:lol: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.
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.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.
:nutkick: That hurts meWell, you're fa...I guess I can't say fat. You're stupid! Yeah, that's right. I went there.
My friend, to quote GOOD WILL HUNTING.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:
You obviously haven't beheld my beauty, nor learned proper grammatical contractions.well, your ugly:lol:
Maybe you should crush ephedrine pills, mix them with baking soda, and see if it somes close to crack (j/k) LOL.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:
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.)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.
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.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.
That's why mostly anything not natural or "artificial" is not the greatest thing in the world...that's what I believe anyways.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.
Before we started using "not natural" things, such as preservatives and medications people didn't live very long.That's why mostly anything not natural or "artificial" is not the greatest thing in the world...that's what I believe anyways.
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.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.
I'm going to end all your sugar wars with one word:
Xylitol:woohoo:
Sorbital (http://www.telecable.es/personales/albatros1/quimica/nomencla/sorbitol.gif) and Sucralose (http://diet-studies.com/graphics/sucralose.gif) have way different chemical structures. Perhaps you were thinking of a different sugar. Here is sucrose for reference: http://web.mit.edu/esgbio/www/lm/sugars/sucrose.gifWhat 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.
Understood. They gotta do what they gotta do, of course. And, I don't know of any alternative fillers to use, personally.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.
Act like you have a pair:think: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.
Don't take it personally, I'm just joking around. And that wasn't specifically pointed towards you.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.
Still not sure I'd go that farPeople make such a huge deal about which sugar substitutes are better than others, but deep down, they're all bad.