This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Splenda article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Splenda itself is a product -- it has nothing to do with sweet tea. I'm not entirely sure that this page should become a recipe book. 97.96.68.40 ( talk) 04:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
==Cooking strategies==
In 2008, McNeil Nutritionals recommended to home bakers to alter their recipes to replace one cup of sugar with 3/4 cup granulated sucralose and 1/4 cup sugar, in order to give a more authentic texture, moisture, and mouth feel to baked goods made with sucralose. The caloric load of traditional Southern sweet tea can be offset by substituting Splenda for 1/3 of the sugar ingredient typically used, thus adding a 2:1 sugar-splenda mixture that preserves the integrity of traditional recipes. [1]
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.76.201.9 ( talk) 19:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
References
according to this article, splenda is "95% dextrose". and dextrose is the biologically active enantiomer of glucose that the body can metabolize. so if splenda is essentially 95% sugar, how is it such low calorie? the only way i see how splenda could be low calorie is if the 5% sucralose is amazingly sweet. -- Bubbachuck ( talk) 22:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
In answer to your question the maltodextrin (not dextrose) filler that is added to sucralose to give it bulk is very light and fluffy so has rather few calories per unit volume. That, together with the fact that sucralose is so much sweeter, explains how a teaspoon of Splenda can be very sweet but have very few calories. CharlesHBennett ( talk) 21:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Here is a recent Splenda recipes book, for use in this article. The beginning of the book gives basic information about how Splenda is made, and why it has no nutritional value. -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 23:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
This is not a joke. However, for some odd reason, it is deleted every time it is put in - although it is verifiable in hundreds of online testimonials and in some academic journals.
Does someone have a problem with this? Why? If you have access to ALL of the academic journals, then you would see it is supported. I can only get some of the abstracts.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=splenda%20flatulence&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelatomato ( talk • contribs) 00:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Don't bother looking for the peer reviewed articles, because they won't exist. One of the advantages of Splenda is that it does NOT cause gas like other artificial sweeteners (such as sugar alcohols like sorbitol, maltitol, xylitol, etc.
include controversy on health risks and Duke study : http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all?content=10.1080/15287390802328630 65.82.126.100 ( talk) 15:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
This study is generally considered to be flawed. DrMatthias ( talk) 20:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
The study may be considered to be flawed by those who stand to profit by discrediting it, but it is defended by other professionals as well, including Professor and editor in chief of the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Sam Kacew.
Defense of the Methodology
Defence of the methodology
In an email correspondence with FoodNavigator.com, Professor Sam Kacew, Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A, expressed his strong support for the methodology used in the study, refuting claims from McNeil that good laboratory practices (GLP) were ignored.
“I want to emphasize and make it absolutely clear that it states in the manuscript, ‘The protocol for these studies was approved by the Duke University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee ( IACUC)" which means that GLP must be followed,” said Professor Kacew.
“If this is contravened then all funding from NIH to Duke University is terminated,” he added.
“Secondly, this manuscript was sent to three independent experts for evaluation. All three reviewers recommended publication with revisions. The authors revised the manuscript and the revisions were once again sent to the reviewers. All three reviewers recommended publication of the revised manuscript.
“This constitutes a rigourous scientific evaluation of this manuscript,” said Professor Kacew.
Ultimately, while the methodology is being debated, the question remains, why not just repeat the study? If 100 studies showed sucralose to be safe but 1 showed it to be unsafe, I'd order 5 more studies, identical to the one that showed it was unsafe to see if the results could be duplicated. Instead, McNeil put together a panel of experts to refute the methodology of the test as opposed to repeating the test themselves to see if there is any truth to it. This fact alone is very telling. We were once told that tobacco and saccharin and NutraSweet were safe too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.112.154 ( talk • contribs) 14 April 2010
I don't see anything here as to why the Duke study is `flawed'. What particular objections to the methodolgy employed are flawed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.136.67.251 ( talk) 14:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
If it's 95% sugars, how can it possibly be "safe" for diabetics? Are there any reliable sources for this claim that don't originate from the Splenda web site? Sucralose itself may be safe. But Splenda? That seems like a dubious claim, and I have tagged it accordingly in the article. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 21:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Until there is a section called Production, I've moved this out of External Links:
In my opinion, a Production section describing the manufacturing process in brief (with high quality verifiable secondary sources) would be a good place for:
-- Lexein ( talk) 20:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I've pulled the "citation style is confusing" - this will always be the case with Wikipedia cites, because when authors are present, they're always listed first, but when there AREN'T authors or dates(!), the title is first. I'd be happier with a Title-always-first format, but that's not going to happen. Oh, Harvard, how you vex me. -- Lexein ( talk) 20:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
″== Diarrhea == Splenda causes diarrhea. Are there no WP:RS that say that? -- Scottandrewhutchins ( talk) 15:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I believe the article uses energy units incorrectly. It talks in several places about "calories" where the actual unit seems to be "kilocalories". For example, it states that a 2.8-gram packet of sugar contains about 11 calories, even though the Wikipedia page on sugar states that 100g of sugar contain 387 kilocalories (= 387,000 calories, which sounds like the correct value to me, given what I know about caloric content). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.18.15.219 ( talk) 10:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
There was a notice about unreferenced materials in regards to the section "Retail pack formats". I removed the section and the notice, then edited the top section to include a single sentence about the forms that Splenda is available in (with a reference). I think including a list of all the types and variations of the product seems more like marketing and less like notability. Encyclopediaclown ( talk) 07:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
From WP:MEDRS:
In what way is the Splenda article not governed by this rule? Ultra Venia ( talk) 17:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
(For this post, I am using Food Calories which equal Kilocalories...)
The article states, "The actual caloric content of a single-serving (1-gram packet) of Splenda is 3.36 calories, 31% of the calories of a single-serving (2.8-gram packet) of granulated sugar (10.8 calories)."
This may have been true at one time for the single-serving packets. However, most of us who use much Splenda buy the 5-Lb. equivalent bags at the grocery. While these bags are equal to 5 Lbs. of sugar, they weigh only 9.7 ounces. Five pounds is 80 ounces. 80 / 9.7 gives a bulking factor for the fluffed maltodextrin of 8.25. So as printed on the 5 Lb. bag, a full one-teaspoon serving, equivalent to 4g sugar, weighs only 4g/8.25 = 0.5g. That makes for 1.8 Food Calories for each full teaspoon (4g) serving. A 2.8g sugar equivalent serving is then 0.34g of (bulked) Splenda, providing roughly 1.2 Food Calories. This is roughly one-third the value given in the article. So, that published figure of 3.36 calories may be off by a factor of 3, when compared to the most widely used form of Splenda, bulked with maltodextrin. EvelDewar ( talk) 17:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvelDewar ( talk • contribs) 17:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Splenda. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
To say Splenda is a sugar substitute derived from sugar is to imply it is "natural". Since many people think anything natural is good and anything unnatural is bad, the following correct statements have very different public relations consequences.
The naturalness issue, and the conflicting spins put on it by sucralose versus sugar manufacturers, are thoroughly treated in the Marketing Controversy section of the article, so it is best kept out of the introduction. Therefore I have changed the introduction to say merely that Splenda is a sucralose-based artificial sweetener. CharlesHBennett ( talk) 20:53, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
The process patent of Splenda is under Steven Catani — Preceding unsigned comment added by CataniUSA ( talk • contribs) 14:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
The article offers a number of milligrams/day/kilogram of *sucralose*, but is vague about the percentage of sucralose that's actually in Splenda. This seems to make it impossible to know how many milligrams of sucralose is being consumed. I realize that it's likely almost impossible to consume too much in normal circumstances, but something closer to a defined amount would be good to have in a reference source like Wikipedia. 50.86.156.24 ( talk) 23:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Splenda article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Splenda itself is a product -- it has nothing to do with sweet tea. I'm not entirely sure that this page should become a recipe book. 97.96.68.40 ( talk) 04:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
==Cooking strategies==
In 2008, McNeil Nutritionals recommended to home bakers to alter their recipes to replace one cup of sugar with 3/4 cup granulated sucralose and 1/4 cup sugar, in order to give a more authentic texture, moisture, and mouth feel to baked goods made with sucralose. The caloric load of traditional Southern sweet tea can be offset by substituting Splenda for 1/3 of the sugar ingredient typically used, thus adding a 2:1 sugar-splenda mixture that preserves the integrity of traditional recipes. [1]
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.76.201.9 ( talk) 19:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
References
according to this article, splenda is "95% dextrose". and dextrose is the biologically active enantiomer of glucose that the body can metabolize. so if splenda is essentially 95% sugar, how is it such low calorie? the only way i see how splenda could be low calorie is if the 5% sucralose is amazingly sweet. -- Bubbachuck ( talk) 22:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
In answer to your question the maltodextrin (not dextrose) filler that is added to sucralose to give it bulk is very light and fluffy so has rather few calories per unit volume. That, together with the fact that sucralose is so much sweeter, explains how a teaspoon of Splenda can be very sweet but have very few calories. CharlesHBennett ( talk) 21:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Here is a recent Splenda recipes book, for use in this article. The beginning of the book gives basic information about how Splenda is made, and why it has no nutritional value. -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 23:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
This is not a joke. However, for some odd reason, it is deleted every time it is put in - although it is verifiable in hundreds of online testimonials and in some academic journals.
Does someone have a problem with this? Why? If you have access to ALL of the academic journals, then you would see it is supported. I can only get some of the abstracts.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=splenda%20flatulence&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelatomato ( talk • contribs) 00:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Don't bother looking for the peer reviewed articles, because they won't exist. One of the advantages of Splenda is that it does NOT cause gas like other artificial sweeteners (such as sugar alcohols like sorbitol, maltitol, xylitol, etc.
include controversy on health risks and Duke study : http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all?content=10.1080/15287390802328630 65.82.126.100 ( talk) 15:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
This study is generally considered to be flawed. DrMatthias ( talk) 20:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
The study may be considered to be flawed by those who stand to profit by discrediting it, but it is defended by other professionals as well, including Professor and editor in chief of the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Sam Kacew.
Defense of the Methodology
Defence of the methodology
In an email correspondence with FoodNavigator.com, Professor Sam Kacew, Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A, expressed his strong support for the methodology used in the study, refuting claims from McNeil that good laboratory practices (GLP) were ignored.
“I want to emphasize and make it absolutely clear that it states in the manuscript, ‘The protocol for these studies was approved by the Duke University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee ( IACUC)" which means that GLP must be followed,” said Professor Kacew.
“If this is contravened then all funding from NIH to Duke University is terminated,” he added.
“Secondly, this manuscript was sent to three independent experts for evaluation. All three reviewers recommended publication with revisions. The authors revised the manuscript and the revisions were once again sent to the reviewers. All three reviewers recommended publication of the revised manuscript.
“This constitutes a rigourous scientific evaluation of this manuscript,” said Professor Kacew.
Ultimately, while the methodology is being debated, the question remains, why not just repeat the study? If 100 studies showed sucralose to be safe but 1 showed it to be unsafe, I'd order 5 more studies, identical to the one that showed it was unsafe to see if the results could be duplicated. Instead, McNeil put together a panel of experts to refute the methodology of the test as opposed to repeating the test themselves to see if there is any truth to it. This fact alone is very telling. We were once told that tobacco and saccharin and NutraSweet were safe too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.112.154 ( talk • contribs) 14 April 2010
I don't see anything here as to why the Duke study is `flawed'. What particular objections to the methodolgy employed are flawed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.136.67.251 ( talk) 14:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
If it's 95% sugars, how can it possibly be "safe" for diabetics? Are there any reliable sources for this claim that don't originate from the Splenda web site? Sucralose itself may be safe. But Splenda? That seems like a dubious claim, and I have tagged it accordingly in the article. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 21:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Until there is a section called Production, I've moved this out of External Links:
In my opinion, a Production section describing the manufacturing process in brief (with high quality verifiable secondary sources) would be a good place for:
-- Lexein ( talk) 20:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I've pulled the "citation style is confusing" - this will always be the case with Wikipedia cites, because when authors are present, they're always listed first, but when there AREN'T authors or dates(!), the title is first. I'd be happier with a Title-always-first format, but that's not going to happen. Oh, Harvard, how you vex me. -- Lexein ( talk) 20:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
″== Diarrhea == Splenda causes diarrhea. Are there no WP:RS that say that? -- Scottandrewhutchins ( talk) 15:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I believe the article uses energy units incorrectly. It talks in several places about "calories" where the actual unit seems to be "kilocalories". For example, it states that a 2.8-gram packet of sugar contains about 11 calories, even though the Wikipedia page on sugar states that 100g of sugar contain 387 kilocalories (= 387,000 calories, which sounds like the correct value to me, given what I know about caloric content). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.18.15.219 ( talk) 10:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
There was a notice about unreferenced materials in regards to the section "Retail pack formats". I removed the section and the notice, then edited the top section to include a single sentence about the forms that Splenda is available in (with a reference). I think including a list of all the types and variations of the product seems more like marketing and less like notability. Encyclopediaclown ( talk) 07:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
From WP:MEDRS:
In what way is the Splenda article not governed by this rule? Ultra Venia ( talk) 17:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
(For this post, I am using Food Calories which equal Kilocalories...)
The article states, "The actual caloric content of a single-serving (1-gram packet) of Splenda is 3.36 calories, 31% of the calories of a single-serving (2.8-gram packet) of granulated sugar (10.8 calories)."
This may have been true at one time for the single-serving packets. However, most of us who use much Splenda buy the 5-Lb. equivalent bags at the grocery. While these bags are equal to 5 Lbs. of sugar, they weigh only 9.7 ounces. Five pounds is 80 ounces. 80 / 9.7 gives a bulking factor for the fluffed maltodextrin of 8.25. So as printed on the 5 Lb. bag, a full one-teaspoon serving, equivalent to 4g sugar, weighs only 4g/8.25 = 0.5g. That makes for 1.8 Food Calories for each full teaspoon (4g) serving. A 2.8g sugar equivalent serving is then 0.34g of (bulked) Splenda, providing roughly 1.2 Food Calories. This is roughly one-third the value given in the article. So, that published figure of 3.36 calories may be off by a factor of 3, when compared to the most widely used form of Splenda, bulked with maltodextrin. EvelDewar ( talk) 17:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvelDewar ( talk • contribs) 17:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Splenda. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
To say Splenda is a sugar substitute derived from sugar is to imply it is "natural". Since many people think anything natural is good and anything unnatural is bad, the following correct statements have very different public relations consequences.
The naturalness issue, and the conflicting spins put on it by sucralose versus sugar manufacturers, are thoroughly treated in the Marketing Controversy section of the article, so it is best kept out of the introduction. Therefore I have changed the introduction to say merely that Splenda is a sucralose-based artificial sweetener. CharlesHBennett ( talk) 20:53, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
The process patent of Splenda is under Steven Catani — Preceding unsigned comment added by CataniUSA ( talk • contribs) 14:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
The article offers a number of milligrams/day/kilogram of *sucralose*, but is vague about the percentage of sucralose that's actually in Splenda. This seems to make it impossible to know how many milligrams of sucralose is being consumed. I realize that it's likely almost impossible to consume too much in normal circumstances, but something closer to a defined amount would be good to have in a reference source like Wikipedia. 50.86.156.24 ( talk) 23:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)