SPLENDA (with calories)

TheGoblinRoad
TheGoblinRoad Posts: 835 Member
in Food and Nutrition
SO I've read this before and wanted to share it here:

"Sucralose has no caloric content, and Splenda products have a lower caloric content than sugar. 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[10]). In the United States, it is legally labelled "zero calories";[10] U.S. FDA regulations allow this "if the food contains less than 5 calories per reference amount customarily consumed and per labeled serving".[11] Further, Splenda contains a relatively small amount of sucralose, little of which is metabolized; virtually all of Splenda's caloric content derives from the dextrose or highly fluffed maltodextrin "bulking agents" that give Splenda its volume. Like other carbohydrates, dextrose and maltodextrin have 3.75 calories per gram."

So 3.36 calories for a packet of Splenda is still less than sugar, but it is calories. Therefore, if you're consuming a lot of splenda either by itself or with "sugar-free" options, keep this in mind. It adds up. Not trying to talk anyone out of using it.

Replies

  • valerietoxii
    valerietoxii Posts: 93 Member
    Sneaky sneaky!
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Same with any artificial sweetener that is bulked out with a powder to make it spoonable or provide bulk in baking. The powders are usually carbohydrates with a calorie value.

    The US FDA regs that allow claims of zero calories are laughable. That's why you get this "zero calorie" crap over there that blatantly isn't.

    If you get artificial sweeteners in the tiny tablet form the carbs and calories are minimised, avoid the powdery stuff.
  • cmayfield3
    cmayfield3 Posts: 176 Member
    This is really interesting, thank you for posting. I know I've seen recipes out there calling for 8-10 packets of Splenda.

    What really gets me is cooking spray. They can call it 0 calories because they define a serving size as 1/4 second spray. That's ridiculous. I read somewhere that the typical person uses 40 calories worth of spray in covering a pan.
  • TheGoblinRoad
    TheGoblinRoad Posts: 835 Member
    Sneaky sneaky!

    exactly.

Categories