I'm not sure the opposite is true like that; I think she is using sucralose as a stand in for 'fake', but sucralose is apt as it is the feeling of the real thing, but something is missing, the substance.
I'm not sure the opposite is true like that; I think she is using sucralose as a stand in for 'fake', but sucralose is apt as it is the feeling of the real thing, but something is missing, the substance.
Fair enough. The emptiness / lack of nutritive substance is a great point that I somehow managed to miss completely, even though in retrospect it's clearly the heart of the analogy.
I suppose I overlooked that because I've just alws viewed added sugars in food and drink as, well, bad... and the lack of them, therefore, as good. To correctly perceive the intent of the analogy, therefore, I have to completely turn that set of reflex associations around flipways, which explains why I never even ••considered•• that interpretation.
There's still a subtle irony there, in that Splenda (sucralose)—unlike its more ubiquitous brother aspartame—has never rlly tried to be "imitation sugar". It's more like stevia, in the sense that it has a distinct, signature taste of its own when it's used as a sweetener, which is altogether different from that of any type of actual sugar.
It's alws been marketed that way, too. Things that are sweetened with Splenda are, more often than not, ADVERTISED as "with Splenda"—which is pretty remarkable if you think about it, in that no marketer in their right mind would even ••think•• of putting an actual imitation sugar (or, for that matter, any other deliberate "imitation" product of any kind at all whatsoever) up front and center that way.
I'm not sure the opposite is true like that; I think she is using sucralose as a stand in for 'fake', but sucralose is apt as it is the feeling of the real thing, but something is missing, the substance.
Fair enough. The emptiness / lack of nutritive substance is a great point that I somehow managed to miss completely, even though in retrospect it's clearly the heart of the analogy.
I suppose I overlooked that because I've just alws viewed added sugars in food and drink as, well, bad... and the lack of them, therefore, as good. To correctly perceive the intent of the analogy, therefore, I have to completely turn that set of reflex associations around flipways, which explains why I never even ••considered•• that interpretation.
There's still a subtle irony there, in that Splenda (sucralose)—unlike its more ubiquitous brother aspartame—has never rlly tried to be "imitation sugar". It's more like stevia, in the sense that it has a distinct, signature taste of its own when it's used as a sweetener, which is altogether different from that of any type of actual sugar.
It's alws been marketed that way, too. Things that are sweetened with Splenda are, more often than not, ADVERTISED as "with Splenda"—which is pretty remarkable if you think about it, in that no marketer in their right mind would even ••think•• of putting an actual imitation sugar (or, for that matter, any other deliberate "imitation" product of any kind at all whatsoever) up front and center that way.