Study warns that heating sucralose (Splenda) can be dangerous

[Hyperspace]

Just curious if any vapers ever had any concerns about sucralose being in most juices? I know I have bad reactions to it when eaten, drank, or vaped. I get weird headaches, so I avoid it whenever possible. I saw a recent study on it saying it can become unstable and release potentially toxic compounds when heated to 208 Fahrenheit. Since most vapers vape at over 208 Fahrenheit this should concern them.

Study warns that heating sucralose can be dangerous

 

[Ed_C]

I had not seen that one yet. I think, as many have stated before, it's the components of the flavorings that are the biggest question marks and it will probably be some time before we have all the answers, as there are so many different flavor components out there. I have been vaping more unflavored juice lately, in part, because of this. That being said, I still think that vaping will be found to be MUCH safer than cigarettes.

 

[Racehorse]

Vaping is harm reduction, not harmless.

One of reasons I dislike most vendor juice is because most of it is so over-sweetened. That sells, so they do that.

Safest way to vape if you are into that is as Ed_C said, unflavored. I often add a drop or 2 (in 30ml) of mint or a fruit flavoring. Not even enough to really taste but gives it a little something.

 

[zoiDman]

One Very Common Misconception is that Splenda is Sucralose.

It Isn't. Splenda is a Registered Trademark of a Artificial Sweetener.

Splenda usually contains 95% dextrose (D-glucose) and maltodextrin (by volume) which the body readily metabolizes, combined with a small amount of mostly indigestible sucralose. Sucralose is made by replacing three select hydrogen-oxygen groups on sucrose (table sugar) molecules with three chlorine atoms. The tightly bound chlorine atoms create a molecular structure that is stable under intense conditions.[14] Sucralose itself is recognized as safe to ingest as a diabetic sugar substitute,[15][16] but some Splenda products may contain sugars or other carbohydrates that should be evaluated individually. The recommended amount of sucralose that can be consumed on a daily basis over a person's lifetime without any adverse effects is 9 mg/kg BW/day, or about 0.6 g for a 70 kg (150 lb) person.[17]

Splenda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Racehorse]

The recommended amount of sucralose that can be consumed on a daily basis over a person's lifetime without any adverse effects is 9 mg/kg BW/day, or about 0.6 g for a 70 kg (150 lb) person.[17]

So when they / you say "consumed" does that include consumed by your lungs, i.e. inhaled, or consumed as in "injested by mouth"?

 

[zoiDman]

So when they / you say "consumed" does that include consumed by your lungs, i.e. inhaled, or consumed as in "injested by mouth"?

I Didn't, and Do Not make any Claims as to what are "Safe" amounts of Sucralose for either Ingestion or Inhalation. Only referencing the Complete Paragraph on Wiki regarding the Amount of Sucralose that is commonly found in Slenda.

And seeing that Slenda was never designed to be Vaporized and then Inhaled, any references that Wiki may list to Consumption Amounts are almost assuredly for Oral Ingestion.

 

[Hyperspace]

One Very Common Misconception is that Splenda is Sucralose.

It Isn't. Splenda is a Registered Trademark of a Artificial Sweetener.

Splenda usually contains 95% dextrose (D-glucose) and maltodextrin (by volume) which the body readily metabolizes, combined with a small amount of mostly indigestible sucralose. Sucralose is made by replacing three select hydrogen-oxygen groups on sucrose (table sugar) molecules with three chlorine atoms. The tightly bound chlorine atoms create a molecular structure that is stable under intense conditions.[14] Sucralose itself is recognized as safe to ingest as a diabetic sugar substitute,[15][16] but some Splenda products may contain sugars or other carbohydrates that should be evaluated individually. The recommended amount of sucralose that can be consumed on a daily basis over a person's lifetime without any adverse effects is 9 mg/kg BW/day, or about 0.6 g for a 70 kg (150 lb) person.[17]

Splenda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since Wikipedia is pro medical establishment and anti natural products I don't trust it as a source of info. Also my body disagrees with Wikipedia since I have adverse reactions to sucralose. Also the study I linked in my first post disagrees with Wikipedia.

Another problem I noticed with sucralose is it gunks up coils rather quickly.

 

[zoiDman]

Since Wikipedia is pro medical establishment and anti natural products I don't trust it as a source of info. Also my body disagrees with Wikipedia since I have adverse reactions to sucralose. Also the study I linked in my first post disagrees with Wikipedia.

Another problem I noticed with sucralose is it gunks up coils rather quickly.

Like I said to Racehorse, the Wiki reference was in regards to How Much Sucralose is commonly found in Slenda.

 

[Hyperspace]

Like I said to Racehorse, the Wiki reference was in regards to How Much Sucralose is commonly found in Slenda.

Oh OK, I got you.

 

[mcclintock]

The article also says that one of the main sources of one of the 2 chemicals of concern is cigarettes.

 

[retired1]

Typical. Let's put everyone in a panic before actual real world testing proves anything.

Heating is one of the main ways to measure a compound’s stability, according to Catharino. The experiment performed by his lab used technical-grade sucralose, the type used by the pharmaceutical and food industries in manufacturing their products.

“It’s slightly different from the sucralose you buy from a supermarket because the consumer version contains additional ingredients to give it body,” he explained. “These ingredients might protect the sucralose from degradation by heating. Or they may boost its toxic effects. We don’t know. We need to find out.”

Emphasis mine.

Getting real tired of so called "scientists" putting out half baked theories before they're actually proven one way or the other.

 

[Ed_C]

Typical. Let's put everyone in a panic before actual real world testing proves anything.



Emphasis mine.

Getting real tired of so called "scientists" putting out half baked theories before they're actually proven one way or the other.

It's not the fault of the scientists. That is how science works. They propose a hypothesis, do the experiment and publish it in a peer reviewed journal. If the media or an individual picks it up and acts like it's well-supported when it was a single, unrepeated experiment, it's the fault of the journalist or individual for not understanding this, not the scientist.

 

[classwife]

It's not the fault of the scientists. That is how science works. They propose a hypothesis, do the experiment and publish it in a peer reviewed journal. If the media or an individual picks it up and acts like it's well-supported when it was a single, unrepeated experiment, it's the fault of the journalist or individual for not understanding this, not the scientist.

And this is part of why we are where we are today with all the "negatives" about vaping.
Someone's tiny little "finding" is gossip spread with hysterical blown up proportions.

 

[Ed_C]

And this is part of why we are where we are today with all the "negatives" about vaping.
Someone's tiny little "finding" is gossip spread with hysterical blown up proportions.

Yep, I agree with you there. People need to be better educated as to how science works.

 

[retired1]

It's not the fault of the scientists. That is how science works. They propose a hypothesis, do the experiment and publish it in a peer reviewed journal. If the media or an individual picks it up and acts like it's well-supported when it was a single, unrepeated experiment, it's the fault of the journalist or individual for not understanding this, not the scientist.

Yes. And no.

Remember Aspartame? Press has been telling us for YEARS that it's bad for us. So imagine my surprise when I read the following.

Aspartame was first approved for use in 1981, but it wasn't until 15 years later that health concerns showed up. In 1996, a research paper showed that there had been a recent increase in brain tumors and hypothesized that this might be due to aspartame. Mind you, it didn't prove that was so. But the potential link was all the media needed to go crazy. TV shows, magazine articles, and newspapers all questioned whether the artificial sweetener was safe.


Further work using data from the National Cancer Institute showed that the increase in brain tumors really began in 1973, long before aspartame was introduced. Moreover, the increases in incidence of cancer were seen primarily in the elderly, which as a group, was not the major consumer of diet soda.


And there's more. A randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trial showed that aspartame didn't affect memory, behavior or mood. And a study published in 2006 followed more than 285,000 men and almost 190,000 women and couldn't detect any relationship between aspartame and brain or blood cancer.

Should this be a surprise to anyone? The media has been attempting to sway public opinion for decades. They haven't "reported" news for eons. It's all about ratings and pushing a liberal social agenda to create their own version of what they feel the world should be.

We're seeing the same thing with e-cigarettes. Regardless of the studies that are showing e-cigarettes as a safer alternative to smoking, we have the social changers denying honest research and will pull any junk science study they can find to prove their point. And no matter how many times they're shown that it IS a safe alternative, the battle cry of "but what about the children?!!!!" is heard.

Heaven forbid the media actually report factual information these days. The rush to be first often results in incomplete stories that take on a life of their own. And if the facts don't fall into their agenda, just change it a bit. Nobody will ever know and we'll get the public whipped into a frenzy. And the public falls for it. Every. Single. Time.

And this is why studies like this "sweetener" study need to be kept under wraps until there's concrete proof that there IS something wrong. Because the both the scientist AND the press have an obligation to present facts, and neither side are doing so. It's all a mad dash to make a name for one's self.

 

[retired1]

And I just had a thought. Considering Brazil tends to lead the world in sugar production, and this so called "study" came out of Brazil, I have a very sneaky hunch this is a trumped up study to protect sugar production.

 

[classwife]

And I just had a thought. Considering Brazil tends to lead the world in sugar production, and this so called "study" came out of Brazil, I have a very sneaky hunch this is a trumped up study to protect sugar production.

 

[classwife]

Yes. And no.

Remember Aspartame? Press has been telling us for YEARS that it's bad for us. So imagine my surprise when I read the following.



Should this be a surprise to anyone? The media has been attempting to sway public opinion for decades. They haven't "reported" news for eons. It's all about ratings and pushing a liberal social agenda to create their own version of what they feel the world should be.

We're seeing the same thing with e-cigarettes. Regardless of the studies that are showing e-cigarettes as a safer alternative to smoking, we have the social changers denying honest research and will pull any junk science study they can find to prove their point. And no matter how many times they're shown that it IS a safe alternative, the battle cry of "but what about the children?!!!!" is heard.

Heaven forbid the media actually report factual information these days. The rush to be first often results in incomplete stories that take on a life of their own. And if the facts don't fall into their agenda, just change it a bit. Nobody will ever know and we'll get the public whipped into a frenzy. And the public falls for it. Every. Single. Time.

And this is why studies like this "sweetener" study need to be kept under wraps until there's concrete proof that there IS something wrong. Because the both the scientist AND the press have an obligation to present facts, and neither side are doing so. It's all a mad dash to make a name for one's self.

I remember BEFORE aspartame came out on the market, reading and hearing what the studies showed as to negative reactions - neurological issues...and was STUNNED that it was released ! I think the first product was Extra Sugar Free Gum...smh...

 

[Ed_C]

Science can't function in a vacuum and you can't keep studies "under wraps." The scientists are just doing their jobs and have no control over what the media or government agencies do with their work. It is up to the citizens to be educated about these things. I'm a science teacher and I consider the topics on "the nature of science" to be the most important things we cover, for those very reasons.

 

[classwife]

Science can't function in a vacuum and you can't keep studies "under wraps." The scientists are just doing their jobs and have no control over what the media or government agencies do with their work. It is up to the citizens to be educated about these things. I'm a science teacher and I consider the topics on "the nature of science" to be the most important things we cover, for those very reasons.

But the 'danger' comes when someone has an agenda and they cherry pick what they are going to run with.