Splenda/Truvia VS. Sugar
Replies
-
As a diabetic in remission, I have lots of reasons to avoid both the calories and the insulin spike that I get from adding granulated sugar to my drinks. I, also, get bored with plain water. I use whatever artificial sweetener is on hand; truvia, stevia, splenda, aspartame, sugar alcohols, sweet-n-low, whatever is in Crystal Lite, and whatever is in Mio.
No noticeable adverse health effects so far. I do suffer if I don't drink enough water.
Crystal Light is aspartame, Mio is sucralose.
0 -
As a diabetic in remission, I have lots of reasons to avoid both the calories and the insulin spike that I get from adding granulated sugar to my drinks. I, also, get bored with plain water. I use whatever artificial sweetener is on hand; truvia, stevia, splenda, aspartame, sugar alcohols, sweet-n-low, whatever is in Crystal Lite, and whatever is in Mio.
No noticeable adverse health effects so far. I do suffer if I don't drink enough water.
Crystal Light is aspartame, Mio is sucralose.
Love them both.0 -
Stevia tastes bitter to me, easily the worst of all non-sugar sweeteners. Sucralose is probably my favorite followed by aspartame and then saccharine. I've been consuming all of them for years and years with zero side effects.
Another alternative is sugar alcohols. They occur naturally in food but can also be synthesized in a lab. You'll have to decide for yourself whether that makes them natural or artificial - assuming that sort of thing matters to you. Sugar alcohols, IMHO, taste better than all other sweeteners except sugar itself, however they are not calorie free. They also tend to have a laxative effect on most people so you'll be sorry if you overindulge.0 -
I have. They're all more or less ok. I prefer aspartame the most, however.0
-
Straying a bit from the original post, but I used to put a lot of sugar/splenda in my coffee (liked it extra sweet too). I realized all that extra sugar definitely wasn't good for me, and probably neither was the splenda, so I forced myself to drink black coffee for a week. I'm 100% caffeine addicted and would be a monster with a migraine without it. After the week, I switched back to adding milk and 1 packet of splenda or a little sugar, and now I'm happy with the sweetness. Something to consider if you're looking to decrease the sugar/sweetener intake in general.
Thanks for that idea! I actually have been thinking about that. I've cut way back on sweet things (like dessert) and am at the point where some things if I eat to much I get sick of the sugar. I started today with less sugar in my coffee (truvia, and it tasted better in my coffee w/ milk vs. tea with water) and it actually still tasted really sweet. I think I will continue to ween myself down. Maybe that will help with other sweet cravings once in a while.0 -
Hey OP, have you tried flavored tea? I'm not sure where in the world you are, but there are lots of black and green teas available with either mint leaves or fruit rinds added in to give a "sweet" flavor with no calories. If you start with that, you may be able to get away with lots less sweetener. And in general, you can try cutting back a little on how much sweetener you add, and then give yourself time to get used to that. Then cut back a little more.
Having said that, there is no proof that any artificial sweeteners are harmful, and any studies that question that usually involve ridiculous amounts of the stuff. It's understandable though that you don't want to be using 15 packets a day or whatever, so maybe just try slowly but surely cutting back a little at a time.
Oh yeah, I have about 12 different kinds of black, green, and herbal tea in my kitchen! Although you are right, the more naturally sweet teas I probably could add less sugar than normal and I wouldn't notice. I think I just had this idea in my head that normally I use 4 packets so I need 4 packets in every cup for each flavor. Time to experiment with that!0 -
allison4224 wrote: »To the OP - what does your Endo have to say about sugar and artificial sweeteners and thyroid disease?
I've never seen one actually. I had a primary care doctor who had hypo too, but after two visits I had serious concerns about her medical training. My mother is a doctor of osteopathic medicine and anytime I talk to her about food/diet/losing weight she pretty much says what everyone says, work out and watch what you eat!
I had complete blood work done 10 months ago (gonna get it redone soon) and everything came back in normal range (glucose, cholesterol, and all other normal type panels).0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »I wouldn't touch sucralose with a ten foot pole. Personal choice, I can taste the chemical/chlorine taste, plus as a chemist I have an abiding distrust of pretty much all organochlorine compounds as food.
@tomteboda - I have a distaste for the chemically taste as well.
Would you please expand on the bolded?
Sucralose is sugar that's been modified to bear chlorine atoms in place of the hydroxyl functional groups that would naturally hang from the carbon backbone. Having greater electronegativity at these points, but a slightly more compact molecular electronic density surface (cloud), sucralose binds more tightly & bonds more strongly to taste receptors. That's why it's "sweeter". It's marketed as being non-digestible, but approximately 1/3 of the population has enzymes that can and do break apart the chlorine atoms from the main backbone and allow for metabolism of the carbohydrate. Because its present in much smaller quantities than an equivalent sweetening power of sugar, the calories associated are, under most human intake patterns, very small.
The thing is, organochlorine compounds are frequently DNA intercolators, leading to a variety of problems (tetragenicity, carcinogenic effects, metabolic interferences etc). While mouse studies on the safety of sucralose have not indicated this problem, I have been unsatisfied with the thoroughness of the conclusion that they are entirely safe. Study design and scope are important, and I am not convinced by what I've read.
I have some professional expertise, as I'm a scientist with peer-reviewed publications in major journals on carbohydrate metabolism, protein/protein & protein/ligand & protein / DNA interactions and also in DNA binding of drugs and have spent 20 years studying these things.
This body of knowledge makes me uncomfortable with sucralose, and so I personally avoid it. I have the suspicion it's going to eventually be found as one of those things we thought were benign my turned out to be not so great. As a case in point, look at bisphenyl-A (which is itself the victim of a great deal of anti - chemical hysteria as it only leaches under very specific conditions).
I'm no anti-chemical hysterist, but personally I'd rather avoid sucralose. I recognize that I could be wrong. However, this is not a gamble that I find myself willing to take at this time.
N.B.
A cell phone is a very non-optimal tool for writing any detailed post using scientific terms.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »I wouldn't touch sucralose with a ten foot pole. Personal choice, I can taste the chemical/chlorine taste, plus as a chemist I have an abiding distrust of pretty much all organochlorine compounds as food.
@tomteboda - I have a distaste for the chemically taste as well.
Would you please expand on the bolded?
Sucralose is sugar that's been modified to bear chlorine atoms in place of the hydroxyl functional groups that would naturally hang from the carbon backbone. Having greater electronegativity at these points, but a slightly more compact molecular electronic density surface (cloud), sucralose binds more tightly & bonds more strongly to taste receptors. That's why it's "sweeter". It's marketed as being non-digestible, but approximately 1/3 of the population has enzymes that can and do break apart the chlorine atoms from the main backbone and allow for metabolism of the carbohydrate. Because its present in much smaller quantities than an equivalent sweetening power of sugar, the calories associated are, under most human intake patterns, very small.
The thing is, organochlorine compounds are frequently DNA intercolators, leading to a variety of problems (tetragenicity, carcinogenic effects, metabolic interferences etc). While mouse studies on the safety of sucralose have not indicated this problem, I have been unsatisfied with the thoroughness of the conclusion that they are entirely safe. Study design and scope are important, and I am not convinced by what I've read.
I have some professional expertise, as I'm a scientist with peer-reviewed publications in major journals on carbohydrate metabolism, protein - protein & protein/ligand & protein / DNA interactions and also in DNA binding of drugs and have spent 20 years studying these things.
This body of knowledge makes me uncomfortable with sucralose, and so I personally avoid it. I have the suspicion it's going to eventually be found as one of those things we thought were benign my turned out to be not so great. As a case in point, look at bisphenyl-A (which is itself the victim of a great deal of anti - chemical hysteria as it only lakes under very specific conditions).
I'm no anti-chemical hysterist, but personally I'd rather avoid sucralose.
Is sucralose the only one you have issue with?0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »That is a LOT of sweetener, both per cup and per day. Did you switch from soda or juice to coffee? When you use sugar in coffee, how much do you use?
I started with one rounded teaspoon of sugar per cup of tea and gradually tapered down to a level 1/2 teaspoon. I don't miss the extra sugar. I was never a soda or juice drinker, so never had an expectation that beverages need to be super super sweet.
A long time ago (years) I drank juice and soda in limited quantities, but now its hardly ever even in the house. I wouldn't say I traded anything for it. Sugar, I probably use 3 tablespoons in drinks (although its beginning to be too sweet). I definitely will be trying to decrease the sweetener no matter what I use.0 -
As a diabetic in remission, I have lots of reasons to avoid both the calories and the insulin spike that I get from adding granulated sugar to my drinks. I, also, get bored with plain water. I use whatever artificial sweetener is on hand; truvia, stevia, splenda, aspartame, sugar alcohols, sweet-n-low, whatever is in Crystal Lite, and whatever is in Mio.
No noticeable adverse health effects so far. I do suffer if I don't drink enough water.
Thats exactly like me. Its hard to drink plain water. I can only have maybe 1 cup after exercising then I need to add cyrstal lite, mio, etc.0 -
@stevencloser Yes. Sucralose is the only artificial sweetener whose safety I am concerned about, and I'm taking a very long - term view on that.0
-
peter56765 wrote: »Another alternative is sugar alcohols. They occur naturally in food but can also be synthesized in a lab. You'll have to decide for yourself whether that makes them natural or artificial - assuming that sort of thing matters to you. Sugar alcohols, IMHO, taste better than all other sweeteners except sugar itself, however they are not calorie free. They also tend to have a laxative effect on most people so you'll be sorry if you overindulge.
Is that something you can buy? What names do they sell it under? As long as it doesn't have any more dangers than typical sweeteners I don't have an issue.0 -
I'm personally a fan of aspartame. Then sucralose, then Sweet n'Low, then sugar alcohols, sugar, and nothing at all. I really don't like stevia/truvia. I'm diabetic btw. Sugar alcohols will raise my BG but not as much as real sugar.0
-
I use agave, it's not bad0
-
meridianfaith wrote: »peter56765 wrote: »Another alternative is sugar alcohols. They occur naturally in food but can also be synthesized in a lab. You'll have to decide for yourself whether that makes them natural or artificial - assuming that sort of thing matters to you. Sugar alcohols, IMHO, taste better than all other sweeteners except sugar itself, however they are not calorie free. They also tend to have a laxative effect on most people so you'll be sorry if you overindulge.
Is that something you can buy? What names do they sell it under? As long as it doesn't have any more dangers than typical sweeteners I don't have an issue.
Sorbitol, xylitol (spelling but be very careful this is fatal for dogs), and a few more but sorbitol is a killer for me. Eat more than one (small) serving and huge laxative effect. Worse than actual laxatives0 -
thanks @singingflutelady for that info.
I started taking a prenatal vitamin last month and [iron] is killing me, so it might not be too bad. Though I will cut back on sweetener anyway.
And with how much splenda and truvia cost it will save me a ton of money, haha.0 -
I'm hypothyroid (don't have one at all) and I've never been told not to use sweetners or not. It was more about taking the pill at the right time/way and not eating soy.meridianfaith wrote: »I have hypothyroidism treated with synthroid and I've been doing some further reading on it and have found differing opinions on sugar and sweeteners in relation to thyroid disease.
That aside, fake sweetners are gross to me there's always an aftertaste, even stevia I can't abide, but this is not your issue. Is it that you prefer the sweetness of the tea, or it's to give it something else? I drink unsweet tea, but it's never a plain black, because then it's just as boring to me as water. IE I like Twinings Lady Earl Grey, Bigelow Cinnamonstick, and Trader Joe's Mint Melange. If you're a sweet tea fan, there are blends that are sweet without sweetners. If none of that works for you, I'd at least go with the real stuff (see reasons above) and just start cutting back as much as you can until you get to a place you can be happy with.0 -
wholesome organics stevia is the only one i use and love0
-
Regular Sugar0
-
rainbowbow wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »amanda_durham35 wrote: »Splenda is an artificial sweetener. Stevia is natural so you're better off going with stevia.
Be under no illusion, you have been duped by marketing. Most stevia products, especially truvia ARE artificial sweeteners.
Ask yourself this, how did they make granulated sweetener from a plant?
In any case, OP, I personally wouldn't worry about these sweeteners as we've studied them for many years and they seem to be safe.
I personally prefer the taste of sweet n low, but i don't mind splenda. In my opinion, stevia (in drop form) tastes awful and should be avoided. The granulated stevia like Truvia tastes okay, but it's far too expensive considering it's just another artificial sweetener and there is nothing more "natural" about it other than Coca Cola's marketing.
Rebaudioside A has the least bitterness of all the steviol glycosides in the Stevia rebaudiana plant. To produce rebaudioside A commercially, stevia plants are dried and subjected to a water extraction process. This crude extract contains about 50% rebaudioside A. The various glycosides are separated and purified via crystallization techniques, typically using ethanol or methanol as solvent.
Water and alcohol. Then drying them.
edited my post. The real answer in the case of these products is, they mixed it with an already existing sugar alcohol. According to the FDA-
In December 2008, the FDA gave a "no objection" approval for GRAS status to Truvia (developed by Cargill and The Coca-Cola Company) and PureVia (developed by PepsiCo and the Whole Earth Sweetener Company, a subsidiary of Merisant), both of which use rebaudioside A derived from the Stevia plant.[63] However, FDA said that these products are not Stevia, but a highly purified product.[64] In 2012, FDA posted a note on its website regarding crude Stevia plant: "FDA has not permitted the use of whole-leaf Stevia or crude Stevia extracts because these substances have not been approved for use as a food additive. FDA does not consider their use in food to be GRAS in light of reports in the literature that raise concerns about the use of these substances. Among these concerns are control of blood sugar and effects on the reproductive, cardiovascular, and renal systems."[65]
My point is simply that this is not a "natural" "better" "more wholesome" sweetener but infact an artificial sweetener with great marketing.
It is not worth more money, and doesn't taste as good.
Even if it was just natural stevia it wouldn't be better. A lot of natural things are poisonous to us.
Only because you've already broken that mentality. Look at the above posts...
"Splenda is an artificial sweetener. Stevia is natural so you're better off going with stevia."
"It had a really weird taste to us, almost like no taste (sweetness) at all. I guess I'm just so used to the chemical taste of splenda, but regular sugar doesn't bother me. When i made my husband coffee he says splenda tastes like card board. I've been mixing them half and half, I intitally was hoping to switch to truvia since i figured, yeah, natural may be better down the road as they learn more about sucralose."
"I have used NuNaturals Pure Liquid Clear Stevia from the health food store for about 5 years now. Truvia is powdered stevia...which is a natural sweetener. I used to use Equal and I just didn't feel right after using it. I was bloated and sluggish. Natural works for me and cuts out the sugar calories."
"I wouldn't touch sucralose with a ten foot pole. Personal choice, I can taste the chemical/chlorine taste"
"Does anyone have personal testimony on their experiences with truvia/splenda (not the kinds like aspartame that clearly have their issues)?"
Almost every single post is running on the idea that chemicals = bad and "natural" = good
That's not why I don't like it. I don't care if one's a chemical and one is 'natural'. I don't like Stevia because it tastes weird to me. I don't use saccharin because no matter what, I end up getting a bitter aftertaste in my mouth when I use it. However, I use Equal in my iced tea, probably because I got used to the taste when I was a kid. It doesn't taste the same as sugar in tea, but it's an acceptable taste to me without the bitter aftertaste that straight saccharin has, so that's what I use. Splenda's an ok alternate, but it still doesn't taste just like using regular sugar. Though, it does do well with baking if you make the adjustments to cooking that it says to do.0 -
Personally, I think Truvia and other stevia products taste disgusting. As someone else mentioned upstream, it tastes fairly bitter - at least, until you put enough in whatever it is you're trying to sweeten. Then, it's too sweet, IMO.0
-
I am SO glad I came by this post! I am not a big sugar consumer anymore, due to a change in diet/lifestyle. My hubby, however, likes his coffee to taste like a candy bar. By his own choice, we have cut back on his sugar. We have tried stevia and truvia on the recommendation of my sister in law who of course stated "they are natural sweeteners". I read the packages after I bought them and the ingredients looked like a chemistry exam. Hubby is using the stevia, but I am getting rid of it and buying raw sugar.
I just really have a problem with food additives. To me, it isn't "natural" if something has been added.
Good luck finding your "sweetener".0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »I wouldn't touch sucralose with a ten foot pole. Personal choice, I can taste the chemical/chlorine taste, plus as a chemist I have an abiding distrust of pretty much all organochlorine compounds as food.
@tomteboda - I have a distaste for the chemically taste as well.
Would you please expand on the bolded?
Sucralose is sugar that's been modified to bear chlorine atoms in place of the hydroxyl functional groups that would naturally hang from the carbon backbone. Having greater electronegativity at these points, but a slightly more compact molecular electronic density surface (cloud), sucralose binds more tightly & bonds more strongly to taste receptors. That's why it's "sweeter". It's marketed as being non-digestible, but approximately 1/3 of the population has enzymes that can and do break apart the chlorine atoms from the main backbone and allow for metabolism of the carbohydrate. Because its present in much smaller quantities than an equivalent sweetening power of sugar, the calories associated are, under most human intake patterns, very small.
The thing is, organochlorine compounds are frequently DNA intercolators, leading to a variety of problems (tetragenicity, carcinogenic effects, metabolic interferences etc). While mouse studies on the safety of sucralose have not indicated this problem, I have been unsatisfied with the thoroughness of the conclusion that they are entirely safe. Study design and scope are important, and I am not convinced by what I've read.
I have some professional expertise, as I'm a scientist with peer-reviewed publications in major journals on carbohydrate metabolism, protein/protein & protein/ligand & protein / DNA interactions and also in DNA binding of drugs and have spent 20 years studying these things.
This body of knowledge makes me uncomfortable with sucralose, and so I personally avoid it. I have the suspicion it's going to eventually be found as one of those things we thought were benign my turned out to be not so great. As a case in point, look at bisphenyl-A (which is itself the victim of a great deal of anti - chemical hysteria as it only leaches under very specific conditions).
I'm no anti-chemical hysterist, but personally I'd rather avoid sucralose. I recognize that I could be wrong. However, this is not a gamble that I find myself willing to take at this time.
N.B.
A cell phone is a very non-optimal tool for writing any detailed post using scientific terms.
Thanks! I appreciate you taking the time.0 -
The whole "natural" thing under discussion here is also under fire by big companies who have vested interests in protecting their ability to withhold information from consumers related to GMO foods. While I was looking at some recipe sites, I came across this blog:
http://kitchenvignettes.blogspot.fr/2015/07/healthier-homemade-oreo-cookies.html
Yes, its for a homemade version of Oreos - if you can get past that and read the article, it is interesting to see which companies are trying to prevent consumers from getting acfcurate info about what is in their food.
It is entirely possible that this discussion about sweetners, natural vs chemical, will be a moot point, because if the companies are successful, you will never know exactly what you are eating.0 -
cross2bear wrote: »The whole "natural" thing under discussion here is also under fire by big companies who have vested interests in protecting their ability to withhold information from consumers related to GMO foods. While I was looking at some recipe sites, I came across this blog:
http://kitchenvignettes.blogspot.fr/2015/07/healthier-homemade-oreo-cookies.html
Yes, its for a homemade version of Oreos - if you can get past that and read the article, it is interesting to see which companies are trying to prevent consumers from getting acfcurate info about what is in their food.
It is entirely possible that this discussion about sweetners, natural vs chemical, will be a moot point, because if the companies are successful, you will never know exactly what you are eating.
Thank you for sharing this!0 -
I personally can't stand the taste of stevie or truvia either. I drink a lot of iced tea and prefer aspartame. I use liquid splenda in my coffee in the mornings, but only because my company provides it. I rarely if ever use powdered splenda. I hate the new Diet Pepsi formula, but that's okay, I'd rather have Diet Coke. If coke ever stops an aspartame version, I'll probably quit diet soda all together. The splenda kind has a funky aftertaste.
Other sweeteners I've tried that I liked were Monk Fruit and Erythritol (mainly only for baking and is the only sugar alcohol that doesn't mess my tummy up).
0 -
-
So whats the whole deal I see all the time with diet drinks being worse than regular (or no better)?
Are people claiming its the artificial sweetener or just the fact that its soda?0 -
meridianfaith wrote: »So whats the whole deal I see all the time with diet drinks being worse than regular (or no better)?
Are people claiming its the artificial sweetener or just the fact that its soda?
Depends who you ask. Some people think artificial sweeteners are worse than hitler, with nothing but blogs to back it up.
Others think for some unfathomable reason that soda has lots of sodium. Is it the name? We will never know.
Others again have the more sensible concern that the acids aren't good for your teeth, which is correct if you drink a lot of it every day. Others think the acids aren't good for your guts and show you videos of how you can clean rust away with coke, which is not correct though because your guts are pretty acid resistant, your stomach being filled with it and all.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions