Sucralose

Renew1 said:
I don't know, man.
This really sucks, because it is the best tasting artificial sweetener, IMO.
Click to expand...
I'm gonna dive a little deeper. This article is a piece of evidence but it dosent really paint the full picture. I hope it's not too serious because I like that sweetener too. The article did say there's only trace amounts of the bad stuff, it's not that the sweatner itself is bad but the byproduct of ingesting it. If you come across more articles post them please, IL do the same. I use the stuff a few times a week. Hopefully my DNA isint changing into the toxic avenger lol
 
Smont said:
I'm gonna dive a little deeper. This article is a piece of evidence but it dosent really paint the full picture. I hope it's not too serious because I like that sweetener too. The article did say there's only trace amounts of the bad stuff, it's not that the sweatner itself is bad but the byproduct of ingesting it. If you come across more articles post them please, IL do the same. I use the stuff a few times a week. Hopefully my DNA isint changing into the toxic avenger lol
Click to expand...
Yeah man, I'll definitely post anything else I find.
... It just happens that I haven't bought any Sucralose in many months.
... And now I don't plan on buying any, unless I see something contradictory.
 
Renew1 said:
Yeah man, I'll definitely post anything else I find.
... It just happens that I haven't bought any Sucralose in many months.
... And now I don't plan on buying any, unless I see something contradictory.
Click to expand...
With a 2 min search there's over 100 studies done in the past 20 years that shows it to be safe. Remember, you can find a study saying something bad about everything, literally everything. There's studies saying diet soda causes cancer, theres even a study that says vitamin c is bad for us. If 1 study is all it takes then we should stop all food and all vitamins because theres studies on everything that make them look dangerous, even vegetables, i wouldn't let this one study make you completely abandon it. Most of us are using ugl labs for a gear with no gurentee of what's in it and we inject it into our body's. I would need a abundance of evidence from some mainstream medical to completely throw this out the window. Still, with all that said, I definitely want to look into it.
 
Smont said:
With a 2 min search there's over 100 studies done in the past 20 years that shows it to be safe. Remember, you can find a study saying something bad about everything, literally everything. There's studies saying diet soda causes cancer, theres even a study that says vitamin c is bad for us. If 1 study is all it takes then we should stop all food and all vitamins because theres studies on everything that make them look dangerous, even vegetables, i wouldn't let this one study make you completely abandon it. Most of us are using ugl labs for a gear with no gurentee of what's in it and we inject it into our body's. I would need a abundance of evidence from some mainstream medical to completely throw this out the window. Still, with all that said, I definitely want to look into it.
Click to expand...

Remember... It's almost impossible to prove a "negative".

All of those studies (while valuable), don't prove it to be safe. If they did ... Only one would be needed.

This study doesn't prove that it is dangerous, but I currently deem it's findings to be concerning enough (for me) to not jump back on that wagon (which I was effectively off of, anyway), unless I see something that persuades me to start using it again.
I didn't put this out there to try and persuade you or anyone else to stop using it.
I merely posted it as information that people should have, so they could make informed decisions for themselves.

On the UGL thing ....
Deciding to use something that may be dangerous, shouldn't (I hope, LOL) encourage them to say, "well, I might as well use other potentially dangerous things, since I'm using an UGL" .

For some reason (LOL) I've found myself in VERY CLOSE relationships with 3 different cigarette smokers.
... And although they Knew them to be dangerous, that didn't encourage them to use other things that they thought were potentially dangerous for them.

👍
 
Smont said:
The article did say there's only trace amounts of the bad stuff, it's not that the sweatner itself is bad but the byproduct of ingesting it.
Click to expand...

It said that there are trace amounts Already in the sweetener, but that higher amounts were produced upon ingestion.

But it also said that even the trace amounts already in the sweetener were more that enough to put it in the zone considered dangerous/unacceptable.

But .... We'll all have even more than those trace amounts, because we all plan on ingesting it.
 
Renew1 said:
It said that there are trace amounts Already in the sweetener, but that higher amounts were produced upon ingestion.

But it also said that even the trace amounts already in the sweetener were more that enough to put it in the zone considered dangerous/unacceptable.

But .... We'll all have even more than those trace amounts, because we all plan on ingesting it.
Click to expand...
Ok word, I misread that part
 
Invalid Link Removed

Toxicological and pharmacokinetic properties of sucralose-6-acetate and its parent sucralose: in vitro screening assays
Invalid Link Removed Invalid Link Removed, Invalid Link Removed Invalid Link Removed, Invalid Link Removed Invalid Link Removed, Invalid Link Removed Invalid Link Removed Invalid Link Removed
Affiliations expand
  • PMID: 37246822
  • DOI: Invalid Link Removed
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the toxicological and pharmacokinetic properties of sucralose-6-acetate, a structural analog of the artificial sweetener sucralose. Sucralose-6-acetate is an intermediate and impurity in the manufacture of sucralose, and recent commercial sucralose samples were found to contain up to 0.67% sucralose-6-acetate. Studies in a rodent model found that sucralose-6-acetate is also present in fecal samples with levels up to 10% relative to sucralose which suggest that sucralose is also acetylated in the intestines. A MultiFlow® assay, a high-throughput genotoxicity screening tool, and a micronucleus (MN) test that detects cytogenetic damage both indicated that sucralose-6-acetate is genotoxic. The mechanism of action was classified as clastogenic (produces DNA strand breaks) using the MultiFlow® assay. The amount of sucralose-6-acetate in a single daily sucralose-sweetened drink might far exceed the threshold of toxicological concern for genotoxicity (TTCgenotox) of 0.15 µg/person/day. The RepliGut® System was employed to expose human intestinal epithelium to sucralose-6-acetate and sucralose, and an RNA-seq analysis was performed to determine gene expression induced by these exposures. Sucralose-6-acetate significantly increased the expression of genes associated with inflammation, oxidative stress, and cancer with greatest expression for the metallothionein 1 G gene (MT1G). Measurements of transepithelial electrical resistance (TEER) and permeability in human transverse colon epithelium indicated that sucralose-6-acetate and sucralose both impaired intestinal barrier integrity. Sucralose-6-acetate also inhibited two members of the cytochrome P450 family (CYP1A2 and CYP2C19). Overall, the toxicological and pharmacokinetic findings for sucralose-6-acetate raise significant health concerns regarding the safety and regulatory status of sucralose itself.


Invalid Link Removed

So NOT tested in an actual COMPLETE HUMAN GI tract. The test model used:

"The RepliGut® model is a unique, human stem cell-derived platform that recreates the intestinal epithelium in a continuous layer of stem and differentiated cells. RepliGut® system can be purchased as a kit, or our team of experts can provide the services you require."

So tested in an environment that is significantly different than the human gi tract. Off the top of my head: no bacterial cultures, no yeasts, no digestive juices/enzymes, no water and I'm sure other things I am missing.

Now this could make a HUGE difference, or it could not make any, OR it could be even worse in a human gut. We really should do more studies on this exact scenario. I would also like to see if the manufacturing process could be "purified" a little more to remove the compound in the starting product as the study ONLY showed it being converted in rats and not humans as of yet.
 
Smont said:
I'm gonna dive a little deeper. This article is a piece of evidence but it dosent really paint the full picture. I hope it's not too serious because I like that sweetener too. The article did say there's only trace amounts of the bad stuff, it's not that the sweatner itself is bad but the byproduct of ingesting it. If you come across more articles post them please, IL do the same. I use the stuff a few times a week. Hopefully my DNA isint changing into the toxic avenger lol
Click to expand...
Couldn’t help it…. I had forgotten about that movie until Smont said that…
Invalid Link Removed
 
Between all of the protein powders I use, artificially sweetened drinks/powders I consume, and spoonfuls of Splenda I put into my plain Greek yogurt, I'm definitely getting cancer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top