Sugar Substitutes are they worth it????

Stevia Leaf Extract and monk fruit extract are both good (Truvia and Nectrese are the brand names).

I personally prefer the taste of the monkfruit.

I blend it with cane sugar for my lime-aide's. I couldn't tell you how it would be in a hot drink- I hear that chances things.

Eeeeew, anything that leaves an aftertaste like that can't be that good for you, I use Stevia as much as possible.

RUN! AS FAST AS YOU CAN FROM THEM!! :-/

As for the debate of sugar substitutes...

Firstly there's the point of the toxicity of it.

Saccharin for instance has been proven in rats to actually be carcinogenic - however, no such tests have been conclusive for humans.

There have been proven tests however showing that if you take the calories out of the equation that some sweeteners (namely Saccharin and Aspartame) spark the same hormonal reaction (i.e. insulin spike) that sugar does.

Sucralose and stevia however, don't.

If you absolutely have to have a sweetener and you want to go the no-sugar route, best to go with something that is naturally occurring if you can.

And if not, then take sugar and just try cut down on your sweet tooth

I hate the taste of pretty much all artificial sweeteners except for Stevia in the Raw and the actual stevia leaf. I used to grow stevia but it died and I haven't bothered to get a new plant for my garden. I've read about monk fruit and I really want to try the new monk fruit extract sweetener once I run out of stevia.

I think that if you're active enough and not diabetic, sugar shouldn't be enough of a concern to you to make this an issue. I'm of the mind that the real thing is best unless your doctor tells you otherwise based upon your specific circumstances.

I do not use any artificial sweeteners (but I did many years ago when I didn't know better). I'm drinking my coffee with just cream. If I choose to make something sweet, I use raw honey or maple syrup. Even gum for my child I have to special order because all gum in my community have artificial sweeteners. I think there is enough evidence out there to support avoiding them, but others will disagree. It's up to you.

As for the debate of sugar substitutes...

Firstly there's the point of the toxicity of it.

Saccharin for instance has been proven in rats to actually be carcinogenic - however, no such tests have been conclusive for humans.

There have been proven tests however showing that if you take the calories out of the equation that some sweeteners (namely Saccharin and Aspartame) spark the same hormonal reaction (i.e. insulin spike) that sugar does.

Sucralose and stevia however, don't.

If you absolutely have to have a sweetener and you want to go the no-sugar route, best to go with something that is naturally occurring if you can.

And if not, then take sugar and just try cut down on your sweet tooth

Mentioning surcalose (Splenda) in the same sentence with stevia doesn't make sense to me. Splenda is a chlorinated sugar molecule, it is no longer sugar, and imo no longer safe to consume. Yes, they've had the most successful marketing campaign in history (imo again) but that doesn't mean it really is "just like sugar". Consume it by all means if one wants to, but I'm hoping people look deeper into things instead of just trusting in the advertisements.

You do understand that the poster was pointing out that both sucralose and stevia have the same effect on insulin levels, right? The poster was not saying they are both natural.

As for the debate of sugar substitutes...

Firstly there's the point of the toxicity of it.

Saccharin for instance has been proven in rats to actually be carcinogenic - however, no such tests have been conclusive for humans.

There have been proven tests however showing that if you take the calories out of the equation that some sweeteners (namely Saccharin and Aspartame) spark the same hormonal reaction (i.e. insulin spike) that sugar does.

Sucralose and stevia however, don't.

If you absolutely have to have a sweetener and you want to go the no-sugar route, best to go with something that is naturally occurring if you can.

And if not, then take sugar and just try cut down on your sweet tooth

Mentioning surcalose (Splenda) in the same sentence with stevia doesn't make sense to me. Splenda is a chlorinated sugar molecule, it is no longer sugar, and imo no longer safe to consume. Yes, they've had the most successful marketing campaign in history (imo again) but that doesn't mean it really is "just like sugar". Consume it by all means if one wants to, but I'm hoping people look deeper into things instead of just trusting in the advertisements.

You do understand that the poster was pointing out that both sucralose and stevia have the same effect on insulin levels, right? The poster was not saying they are both natural.

It's nice that some people read the whole post before commenting, huh?

I'm not talking about the natural vs. man-made debate - we take drugs every day that are synthesised - and with everything comes risk.

If you're really concerned about that - then it's natural or bust.

However if you believe the weight of scientific research that indicates that using sweeteners are no more dangerous than say, taking paracetamol - then you go for the ones that have a) not had test results that indicate anything like a cancer risk, and b) take the one that reduces the chance of an insulin spike.

Let's bring this risk vs reward thing into perspective here. You could use a sweetener that may have _some_ sort of risk down the line (though sweeteners have been around for decades and there aren't many examples worldwide, you be the judge) - You could also cross a road tomorrow and get hit by a car.

The statistical probability of you dying from sweetener use vs dying crossing a road is pretty heavily weighted against crossing the road...

...So using sweeteners is probably one of the least of your concerns in life really.

If you're really concerned - use science to help you (i.e. the bit I posted before) - else don't worry about it. There are more important things in life to worry about!

As for the debate of sugar substitutes...

Firstly there's the point of the toxicity of it.

Saccharin for instance has been proven in rats to actually be carcinogenic - however, no such tests have been conclusive for humans.

There have been proven tests however showing that if you take the calories out of the equation that some sweeteners (namely Saccharin and Aspartame) spark the same hormonal reaction (i.e. insulin spike) that sugar does.

Sucralose and stevia however, don't.

If you absolutely have to have a sweetener and you want to go the no-sugar route, best to go with something that is naturally occurring if you can.

And if not, then take sugar and just try cut down on your sweet tooth

Mentioning surcalose (Splenda) in the same sentence with stevia doesn't make sense to me. Splenda is a chlorinated sugar molecule, it is no longer sugar, and imo no longer safe to consume. Yes, they've had the most successful marketing campaign in history (imo again) but that doesn't mean it really is "just like sugar". Consume it by all means if one wants to, but I'm hoping people look deeper into things instead of just trusting in the advertisements.

You do understand that the poster was pointing out that both sucralose and stevia have the same effect on insulin levels, right? The poster was not saying they are both natural.

It's nice that some people read the whole post before commenting, huh?

I'm not talking about the natural vs. man-made debate - we take drugs every day that are synthesised - and with everything comes risk.

If you're really concerned about that - then it's natural or bust.

However if you believe the weight of scientific research that indicates that using sweeteners are no more dangerous than say, taking paracetamol - then you go for the ones that have a) not had test results that indicate anything like a cancer risk, and b) take the one that reduces the chance of an insulin spike.

Let's bring this risk vs reward thing into perspective here. You could use a sweetener that may have _some_ sort of risk down the line (though sweeteners have been around for decades and there aren't many examples worldwide, you be the judge) - You could also cross a road tomorrow and get hit by a car.

The statistical probability of you dying from sweetener use vs dying crossing a road is pretty heavily weighted against crossing the road...

...So using sweeteners is probably one of the least of your concerns in life really.

If you're really concerned - use science to help you (i.e. the bit I posted before) - else don't worry about it. There are more important things in life to worry about!

No need to be rude. I did read the post and I took it as equating Splenda with Stevia as both being better, that's all, and it's possible that I misunderstood you. I'll refrain from responding in depth to this latest post, which is just getting ridiculous imo, except to say that I don't use paracetamol (aka acetaminophen, Tylenol) either. I don't think dying in an accident is at all comparable to knowingly consuming toxic substances, IMO.